Talk:Countersteering/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Old countersteering external link

Dead link: http://www.losethetrainingwheels.org/default.aspx?Lev=2&ID=36
Web archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20071222033348/http://www.losethetrainingwheels.org/default.aspx?Lev=2&ID=36

Might still be useful.--Dbratland (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Very much so, I think. Thanks for finding this. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Car vs Bike

I am going to rename this page to Counter steering (motorcycle), and create a separate article for automobiles, currently there is a link to full lock which is a technique for using oversteering to take a corner faster, this uses car countersteering, but does not describe what car countersteering is or what it is used for which is basically the way to deal with oversteer.

Very little gravitas indeed (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Bad move. If you had discussed this you would have received an objection. Countersteering, if you read the article, is not just used on motorcycles but any single track vehicle. This needs much more discussion so for now I have requested that things be put back how they were. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The article itself indicates that countersteering as described by the article is countersteering as a rider technique and not countersteering as a physical phenomenon, and also describes why it is important that a differentiation is made. Whilst it may mean every use of countersteering in the motorcycle world means what this article means the phrase counter-steer is also used in the car world meaning to steer the opposite way to a turn during a turn, it is not the same thing as opposite lock as this is a technique that uses counter steering. If you want to undo all my changes make sure you delete the updated article at Countersteering (Automobile) as well. Very little gravitas indeed (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I certainly do want to undo your changes, not least because if the move were to be accepted by others it would be done in a different case e.g. Countersteering (automobile) to fit with Wikipedia naming conventions. Unfortunately I can't undo the move of this article, it needs administrator intervention. Nor can I under the automobile article move because although I did undo the move initially, you reverted it and now it too needs administrator intervention. While I accept that you acted in completely good faith in the spirit of WP:BOLD, a little less haste would have ended with a better result. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok undone myself, I'm sorry I wanted to use my knowledge to improve the information in wikipedia not engage in a democratic argument on the merits of labels, wiki is after all designed to be quick. It seems nonsensical to spend more effort debating on making improvements than actually doing them consider me chastened. Very little gravitas indeed (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to the definition of terms across multiple disciplines, as is the case here, personal knowledge usually falls far short and even textbooks often only provide parts of the entire picture. While wikis in general may be designed to be quick, Wikipedia is in no hurry and consensus "is one of a range of policies concerning how editors work with each other." -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you should consider my suggestion to try to merge Scandinavian flick, Drifting (motorsport) and Opposite lock, especially if you're knowledgeable about driving things with 4 wheels and know where the good sources are buried. Countersteering is basically OK but those three articles are crying out to be rationalized.

And there is nothing to feel chastened about. Classic case of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Which is about as good as Wikipedia gets. Cheers. --Dbratland (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Move request

{{movereq}}

Countersteering (Motorcycle) → Countersteering and Countersteering (Automobile) → Opposite lock — These two articles (this one and Opposite lock) were just moved with no discussion whatsoever. I would like them moved back and then properly discussed. Biker Biker (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Agree - move Countersteering (Motorcycle) back to Countersteering. The article clearly is not specific only to motorcycles. Also, while countersteering always happens with single-track vehicles, it is only used with automobiles under certain conditions. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Move - Back the way it was. Seems like the car people need to pick which term the like: opposite lock, drifting, Scandinavian flick, Drifting (motorsport) (which are exactly the same thing and shouldn't they all be merged with Opposite lock?), Finnish flick, Manji Drifting, or Pendulum turn. The list goes on. I think drift probably wins but that's a whole other discussion. With motorcycles and bicycles (one of the reasons why Countersteering (Motorcycle) is not a good name), there is no unresolved debate over what to call it, and so why mess with it? It's also very hard to find search hits for countersteering or "counter steering" that aren't about bicycles and motorcycles.--Dbratland (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Agree - move Countersteering (Motorcycle) back to Countersteering. Since it is not only for motocycle. --Stefan ^talk 17:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done, per the quick consensus here and User:Very little gravitas indeed's above comment dated "16:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)". tedder (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Various thoughts from a newcomer

Clearly a lot of good work has gone into this so I hesitate to make even very minor edits without discussion, but I have a few thoughts: -

• The bike v automobile section could contain reference to the “cone effect” i.e. a wheel at an angle has a tendency to steer in an arc centred on the point at which the extended centreline of the wheel’s axel meets the ground. This is a fundamental part of the difference between the two modes (and far more significant than the lateral displacement of the driving force from the centre of resistance or C of G). -Rolo Tamasi (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe I understand your point here. The camber thrust and torque due to camber angle are discussed in Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics, but they are not necessary for countersteering to be necessary or to function properly. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If something helps the reader’s appreciation I don’t think it should be excluded just because it is also touched on elsewhere. If we are to have a section entitled bike v automobile its would be remiss of us not to refer to camber thrust because it is by far the biggest difference between the two modes. Also it gives substantial insight into why steering angles are so different for bikes compared to cars and allows the reader to appreciate that it is nothing to do with countersteering (which is a popularly held myth). As currently drafted there is, in my view, a risk that the reader will feel they are being invited to infer that the turning due to leaning is a result of the lateral displacement between the C of G and the drive (which we know only can have an effect if some non radial acceleration is taking place).Rolo Tamasi (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for being dense, but perhaps you'll have to try making the change yourself because I still don't believe I see your point. Among differences in lateral stability and steer by torque vs steer by angle, I'm not sure that camber thrust is the biggest difference between bikes and cars. I am not familiar with the myth to which you refer. I don't believe the article suggests, nor should it, that turning is due to leaning. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That is a surprise. While I would not wish to state that all turning is due to leaning the cited references recognise that it is a part and that camber thrust can be the greater contributor to the turning centripetal force (indeed the camber thrust can be greater than the centripetal force). In these circumstances I don’t understand how you can object to the article explaining that the reduced steering angles observed in a balanced turn are due to this effect and not due to countersteering, which is only relevant when changing angles of lean. Rolo Tamasi (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I resist, not really object, because this article is about countersteering, which is only relevant when changing angles of lean, as you so precisely put it. The reduced steering angles observed in a balanced turn due to camber effects should be, and I believe are, covered in the main article Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics, along with other effects that influence steering angles, such as steering ratio and geometric effects. However, just because I think one way certainly does not make it correct. I would be happy to read your changes and do my best to consider them with an open mind. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

good polish to my words in the article thanks Andrew.Rolo Tamasi (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• The references to contersteering being momentary or a jolt could mislead the reader. It is normally a controlled and progressive action rather than an impulse and can go on for some period (in slaloming, for example, it may be a continuous activity). -Rolo Tamasi (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess that means I’ve got the job of constructing numerous minor edits that are concise, accurate and don’t spoil the flow…! Rolo Tamasi (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• The intent of “As the desired angle is approached, the front wheel must then be steered into the turn to maintain that angle or the bike will continue to lean with gravity” is good but it could give the impression that the steering angle has to be into the turn. This is not necessarily the case as the actual steering angle for any particular steady state corner is defined by the slip angle needed to generate the necessary centripetal force. It will frequently be into turn but, at speed, is often close to central and can be slightly out of turn. I therefore propose dropping the words “into the turn”. -Rolo Tamasi (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that help perpetuate the myth that countersteering simply means that the front wheel is steered away from the turn for the entire turn? -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I am emotionally entirely with you but I expect neither of us wish to destroy one annoying myth by replacing it with another! My suggestion was neutral by just removing the contentious phrase. However I would be very happy to add further words to emphasis the point that in most cases the steering angle will be into turn. Rolo Tamasi (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am surprised that the effect of tyre design is ignored as they have an effect on slip angle and therefore steering angle. (Although I’m relived that popular myth that turning is due to tyre profile is not repeated here). -Rolo Tamasi (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that popular myth the same "cone effect" you would like to see mentioned? -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say it is related but not the same. Do I detect a bit of “reverse spin” in the chosen words to avoid a possibility that they are misinterpreted to wrongly give credence to an erroneous myth? The risk is that by not listing the tyres as a one of the variables in steering angle people may be able to point to a factual error. On the other hand I’m willing to accept that it is a small point and may not justify the number of words necessary to state it in a way that can not be misinterpreted (but I reserve the right to come back to this in future some time!) Rolo Tamasi (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I’ve just re-read your comment and may have misinterpreted it when drafting my reply above. Camber thrust is independent of tyre profile (other than on very peripheral issues) but many people believe it is entirely dependent upon it. Rolo Tamasi (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That point, with a suitable reference might be a nice addition to the camber thrust article. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I will take my confused ramblings over to camber thrust. Rolo Tamasi (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am surprised at the dogmatic assertions on “feel” issues, which are in fact highly variable. In particular I suggest we replace “inverts to become” with “often becomes” in “At higher speeds, the direction of the necessary input torque inverts to become positive, that is in the same direction as the turn.” -Rolo Tamasi (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Done (well in a minute it will be) Rolo Tamasi (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Is there a reference for the source of the stated gyroscopic forces? If not I suggest the calculations supporting them should be shown. -Rolo Tamasi (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It is from Cossalter's Motorcycle Dynamics. I'll add a reference. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

greatRolo Tamasi (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added the reference, and a walk-through of the calculations is provided above in #Gyroscopic effects. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Great article though, if Wiki can get it this right why do so many false myths continue in editorial of motorcycle mags? Rolo Tamasi (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to working with you to get these issues sorted out. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

me too, but not a lot of room for improvement. -Rolo Tamasi (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

thoughts from another newcomer

The following sentence is false. Unfortunately it appears as such in other literature and thus can be "verified":

"Once sufficient lean is established to sustain the desired turn, the rider, or in many cases the bike itself, then steers into the turn to cause the bike to turn in the desired direction and stop the lean from increasing"

Once the gyroscopic forces that govern a motorcycle take hold (above about 20mph), the bike's lean angle and direction of travel are determined entirely by the amount of "counterangle" in the bars. Neither I nor my bike "then steer into the turn". My bike continues to lean and turn left for as long as I have my front wheel point right of the centerline. If I were to race around a right-hand oval track by bars are never "steered" right (rotated clockwise). My right-hand lean angle is controlled at all times by the how far bmy bars are turn counterclockwise from center.

If you don't believe me, hop on a motorcycle and give it a shot — Preceding unsigned comment added by VWWV (talk • contribs) 22:47, 26 August 2011

The lean angle of a bike is strictly set by the forward speed and turn radius, and the turn radius is also heavily influenced by the difference in slip angle between the front and rear tire, so I believe it is inaccurate to state that "the bike's lean angle and direction of travel are determined entirely by the amount of "counterangle" in the bars." While we have not seen your particular bike or how you ride it, published reports of fully-instrumented bikes in peer-reviewed academic journals lead me to believe that you may be confusing the torque you apply to the handlebars with the actual steer angle necessary to negotiate a turn. Most bikes do require a counter torque to maintain a steady-state turn in much of their operating range, and it certainly is possible that your front wheel points "right of centerline" as your bike leans and turns left, but the average bike on pavement under normal conditions has been measured to do the opposite: its front wheel points left of centerline when it is in a steady-state left turn. Unfortunately hopping on a motorcycle is unlikely to clarify anything because what a human reports is unreliable for detecting anything but that that human thought they sensed. Even if your perceptions were more reliable than that, they could only be considered original research and so be of little use here on Wikipedia.

In any case, I have updated the article to allow better for cases in which the steer angle remains counter to the direction of the turn, as the cited reference reports. Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. My bike is a Honda CBR600f4i which I ride every day at freeway speeds from San Francisco to Oakland and back again. I think much of the confusion here is related to how powerful the gyroscopic forces are on a motorcycle as opposed to a bicycle (the wheels are much heavier and the bike travels faster). -VWWV (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe there is confusion on my part, nor I suspect on the part of Cossalter, Lot, or Peretto. In fact, on page 287 of Cossalter's book, Motorcycle Dynamics, he steps through calculating exactly what gyroscopic effects are generated by the wheels and the engine due to yaw and roll motions. Starting on page 302, he shows several graphs similar to the lead image in the article that show how the bike responds in steer angle, roll angle, and yaw angle to an input steer torque. An initial torque to the left causes a momentary steer to the left but eventually results in a steer, lean, and turn to the right. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I do not have peer reviewed research although I'm sure accounts exist by motorcycle racers and other high-speed motorcycle riders. As far as what human sense as opposed to what's actually happening, I am working on a test to demonstrate my point in a video but, if you give it a try, you'll see that there is very little doubt. -VWWV (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

See my comments above on original research. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

A motorcycle will tend to stabilize itself upright at speed with the wheel in a centered position. You can apply no pressure whatsoever to the bars and the motorcycle will remain stable. With one hand, apply pressure to one bar in a single direction, as I noted, and the bike will lean in direct proportion to the countersteer angle in the opposite direction. The front wheel points left, the bike rotates right. At no point does my applying torque in one direction cause the bars to go in the opposite as there is a massive centering, stabilizing force caused by the heavy wheels spinning so quickly. I've verified this by applying white strips of painter's tape to measure the steering angle. At no point does my bike require steering right to turn right. -VWWV (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The gyroscopic effect is more interesting and useful than merely stabilizing or centering. Surely you have read about how the input steer torque from the rider on the handle bars generates a roll torque which helps lean the bike into the turn long before the tires generate enough lateral force to do so. In countersteering, it is often not necessary to change the initial counter torque on the handle bars for the front wheel to steer back past straight ahead and into the turn. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Motorcycle racers expend a huge amount of energy countersteering throughout their turns. A centered, forward-facing wheel will result in a vertical bike. When gyroscopic forces are not so powerful, indeed, steering in the direction of the turn is necessary at the end of the turn to right the bike. -VWWV (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Upon re-reading Cossalter's article, I agree that a counter steer angle is more common in steady-state turning than the Wikipedia article allows for, especially at highway speeds and above. Thus I have altered the Wikipedia article to reflect better, I hope, the source material and have inserted references with quotations for the key points. I have removed the sentence to which you initially objected so that the point about the resulting steady-state steer angle can be addressed more accurately in a later paragraph. Thanks again for sticking with this detail. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Having checked back on this issue, it seems a lot of this article still seems to lead the reader to believe that only a "momentary" moment of countersteer is necessary to "initiate" a continuous turn. For example, this sentence is patently false:

As the desired angle is approached, the front wheel must usually be steered into the turn to maintain that angle or the bike will continue to lean with gravity, increasing in rate, until the side contacts the ground.

At speed, the counter-steering is not momentary, but rather continuous. The apex corresponds to the maximum lean corresponds to the maximum amount of countersteering input (again, at speed). Turning the wheel "into" the turn would cause the bike to bank in the opposite direction and turn in the opposite direction. A motorcycle travelling at-speed inherently rights itself, rather than tipping with gravity towards the ground. One would lessen counter-steering forces should the lean-angle be too great but the input could not be switched and the turn maintained. Motorcycles are not leaned using gravity or, rider weight (although clearly rider weight can affect the balance or attitude of the bike) but by countersteering input through the bars.

Again, I think a lot of bicycle riders are editing the article and under those circumstances, rider weight is much greater relative to speed and wheel mass. Turning into the turn is necessary because the rider must cause a "lean force" opposite the turn to hold his/her weight up. On a motorcycle travelling at speed, this is not the case.

I also see a lot of discussion of using countersteering to counteract increasing rear-slip that, while true, leads me to believe the writer is assuming countersteering is a momentary control input. I believe you have understood Cossalter's article correctly but this wikipedia article to fails to properly decribe the simple fact: As speed and/or wheel mass increase, the steering angle necessary to cause a turn is increasingly "counter" to the steering input necessary in a 4-wheeled vehicle. Again, a motorcycle must lean into the turn and this lean is proportional to the amount of countsteering input the rider applies.

Another sentence indicates that momentary countersteering may again be necessary within the turn to maintain the appropriate lean angle. As another reader mentions, all motorcycle inputs must be continuous and progressive to maintain stability.

Check out 2:47 in this video and any other slow-motion motorcycle-racing video. Indeed, exaggerated countersteering is required at apex to correct for slip, but you can see clearly how the Hondas behave as the Repsol riders countersteer through the beginning of the turn. -VWWV (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Some comments in reply:

• I have not yet seen the terms "countersteering", "counter-steering", or "counter steering" well defined in a reliable source. The steer angles involved are usually small and difficult to see, especially at high speeds, and the input steer torques are invisible, so videos, slow-motion or otherwise, are not reliable sources.
• It is not clear from the above comments whether "counter-steering" is used to refer to the input steer torque or the resulting steer angle or both. This article attempts to distinguish between the two. Hence paragraph 4:

It is also important to distinguish the steering torque and steering angle necessary to establish the lean required for a given turn from the sustained steer torque and steer angle necessary to maintain a constant radius and lean angle until it is time to exit the turn. The initial steer torque and steer angle are both opposite the desired turn direction. The sustained steer angle is usually in the same direction as the turn, but may remain opposite to the direction of the turn, especially at high speeds.[5] The sustained steer torque required to maintain that steer angle is usually opposite the turn direction.[6] The actual magnitude and orientation of both the sustained steer angle and sustained steer torque of a particular bike in a particular turn depend on forward speed, bike geometry, tire properties, and combined bike and rider mass distribution.

• Yes, this article is written about the entire single-track vehicle spectrum, from bicycles to motorcycles, since they all require countersteering. I cannot understand the distinction made between bicycle and motorcycles in the comments above.
• I don't know where rear tire slip is discussed a lot, but I see it mentioned only once in this article, near the end.

If anyone can provide a reliable source that clarifies any of these issues, or can pinpoint where an existing reference is misinterpreted, please do so. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea how to use this talk page, but I came in because I believe the statement "Once sufficient lean is established to sustain the desired turn, the rider, or in many cases the bike itself, then steers into the turn to cause the bike to turn in the desired direction and stop the lean from increasing" is misleading and dangerous to motorcyclists learning about countersteering (at least at speeds greater than 20kph). I believe everything that the user VWWV has stated to be correct. Countersteering must be continued to maintain lean angle, one does not switch it off to stop increasing lean angle. I would suggest this is not as apparent on a bicycle because the rider is unlikely to take such effective lines through corners. A cyclist may countersteer, but too aggressively, meaning they must steer toward the direction of the corner to correct the error and make a broader turn. Because someone on a bicycle isn't travelling particularly fast, they can repeat this process many times, happily wobbling around a corner.

I would suggest that some misunderstanding has occurred in the reading of peer reviewed references. If one can steer to the right to initiate a left hand corner and appropriate lean direction (inwards), why on earth would steering left (toward the corner) not immediately cause the bike to stand up and begin to lean outward? You can't just perform a counter steer action and then reverse the action expecting the bike to go around a corner. Anyway, James R. Davis does a much better explanation of such things.

My reference is not peer reviewed, but it is reviewed in the sense that thousands of motorcyclists agree with this man. I would suggest the following website for anyone wishing to inform themselves about counter steering: Motorcycle Safety - Countersteering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.36.123 (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

No Hands - a secondary effect not mentioned

From the no hands section of the article: To turn left, a rider applies a momentary torque, either at the seat via the legs or in the torso that causes the bike itself to lean to the right, called counter lean by some authors. The combined center of mass of the bike and rider is only lowered, of course.

Note that in the case of a motorcycle, which usually weighs much more than the rider, there's enough angular inertia that the combined center of mass is shifted somewhat in the direction that the rider leans towards. There will be a lateral force between the contact patches of the tires and the pavement resulting in acceleration of the center of mass of bike and rider in the direction of the rider's lean. The trail in the steering geometry also has a caster property, and the side force also contributes to the front tire steering outwards when a rider leans inwards. Rcgldr (talk) 08:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that the inverted double pendulum can be control with only a torque applied at the joint between the two pendulums, (Underactuated Robotics: Learning, Planning, and Control for Efficient and Agile Machines, Course Notes for MIT 6.832 by Russ Tedrake at Massachusetts Institute of Technology) but I have not yet found anything that indicates an advantage to having more mass in the one closer to the fixed support nor any mention of the effectiveness of this on bicycle or motorcycles. Is there a better source? The other points, I believe are already covered under "ground reaction forces". -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If there are ground reaction forces, then the center of mass is accelerated laterally, but the article states that the center of mass is only lowered. These seem like conflicting statements.

Yes, if they have a horizontal component, but it is not clear that they do. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

advantage to having more mass on lower pendulum. I didn't mean to imply that it was an advantage, just that there would be more lateral forces involved, such as the ground reaction forces, when the lower pendulum has more angular inertia. As an example, on a very light bicycle, there's almost no lateral force due to the rider leaning because the angular inertia of the bicycle is so small. If the rider performs the same leaning motion on a relatively heavy motorcycle, there is some amount of lateral force involved because of the greater angular inertia of the motorcycle. Rcgldr (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It sounds as though you are assuming that the ground reaction forces are the only forces on the bike. The rider is applying both a torque and forces at the pivot point between them. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply the ground reaction forces are the only forces, and yes the rider applies both a torque and a force at the pivot point between rider and bike, but due to the fact that a rider can only move so quickly, those torques and forces are very limited in the case of a very light bicycle, versus the torques and forces that a rider could generate in the case of a motorcycle. I was just trying to point out that in addition to leaning of a motorcycle resulting in the front tire steering into the lean, a lateral force will also cause the front tire to steer outwards due to caster effect. I don't know how sigifincant this caster effect is compared to the lean related effects. The situation can be reversed in a sense, the rider can use counter steering inputs to keep the bike vertical while leaning from one side of the bike to the other, using the counter steering inputs to generate sufficient ground reaction forces to eliminate any net torque on the bike during a transition. This is often done when motorcycle races hang off during corner approach while still going straight. Rcgldr (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect statement regarding countersteering as only method of balance

The following statement is incorrect and needs adjustment:

"The physical phenomenon always occurs, because there is no other way to cause the bike and rider to lean short of some outside influence such as an opportune side wind, although at low speeds it can be lost or hidden in the minute corrections made to maintain balance."

Here's a perfect example of when countersteering is not used for balance: balancing on a tightrope. With a tightrope, the point of contact ideally does not move. What instead happens is that frictional forces acting at the point of contact accelerate the person. These frictional forces can be developed and directed through twisting of the body.

However, countersteering - I know as a unicyclist - is a very important method of balance. I would argue their are two primary methods of balance for inverted, erect bodies: countersteering and friction due to twisting motion of the body. -Jabbott.mit (talk) 02:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for contributing to this article.

1. editors may object to your external link simply because it appears to promote a video you made. It is a conflict of interest.
2. videos are notoriously bad at proving something as subtle as countersteering can be.
3. while I must concede that countersteering is not the only way to cause the bike and rider to lean, as evidenced by circus performers, I contend that a tightrope is a poor example because the contact point definitely does move laterally.

I'll see if I can find a suitable reference and tweak the text. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's a better video example of the balance technique to which you refer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU-pUMIk22c On the railroad track, the contact patch cannot move laterally, and the rider clearly balances, and thus changes the lean angle between the contact patches and the combined center of mass, by accelerating an appendage. Now, if we can just find some non-video reliable source that states the same thing. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

(sorry for late response, haven't looked at this talk page in a while). I thought this method was brought up before (now archived) using the example of a tight rope bicycle rider, using arms or a balance pole to generate a torque to maintain balance. As seen in that video, when at very slow speed or when stopped, trials riders, on both bicycles and very light motorcycles, swing a leg and/or lean to generate a torque to maintain balance. Even when stopped, steering can still be used since the contact patch is behind the pivot axis on most bicycles / motorcycles, and steering inputs will move the contact patch laterally with respect to the bicycle / motorcycle frame to generate small lateral forces at the contact patch resulting in small balancing torques. The amount of torque that can be generated by arm / leg / body movements is small, and mostly used at very slow speeds or when stopped. At normal riding speeds, countersteering can generate much more torque and is the primary source for balance. Rcgldr (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The general concept is that lean angle is maintained or changed through generation of torque. For a unicycle / bicycle / motorcycle moving at reasonable speed, the normal method used to generate the desired torque is to countersteer, either directly through steering inputs or indirectly through rider movements (rider movements only work within the stable (self-correcting) region of speed for a unitrack vehicle). When at very slow speeds or when stopped, then other methods like steering, body leaning, or leg swinging to generate small amounts of torque will work as long as the lean angle is kept small. Rcgldr (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe the issue was addressed last June. Now the article states:

The physical phenomenon usually occurs, because it is the easiest to cause the bike and rider to lean... Another way to cause the bike and rider to lean is by applying appropriate torques between the bike and rider similar to the way a gymnast can swing up from hanging straight down on uneven parallel bars, a person can start swinging on a swing from rest by pumping their legs, or a double inverted pendulum can be controlled with an actuator only at the elbow.

It is followed by a reference to robot control at Berkeley that describes the technique. -AndrewDressel (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Camber Thrust

The amount of centripetal force generated by camber thrust is debatable. Quote from and link to an archived article where a bicycle made with coned tires was made:

a bicycle with two cones and parallel axles travels in a straight line. It does not turn.

bike1.htm

One of the effects of camber thrust at the front tire should cause it to steer inwards (since the inside is trying to roll slower than the middle), but the actual amount of steering torque related to camber thrust is relatively small (it doesn't require the rider to exert a lot of counter-steering effort to oppose this).

At normal speeds, say 45 kph or higher, the actual turning radius is about 10x or more greater than the "radius" that camber thrust would predict.

Turning radius can be calculated by extending the front and rear tire axis lines and noting where they cross, which will be below the surface depending on the lean angle. The point on the surface directly above the intersection of those two lines will be the center of the circle that a bicycle or motorcycle will tend to turn based on steering and lean angle. The actual radius will be slightly larger due to deformation at the contact patches due to the cornering loads related to centripetal force. Rcgldr (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you are making, but the current camber thrust article doesn't even mention the "rolling cone" model, mostly for lack of reliable sources. As explained on that article talk page, neither "Cossalter nor Pacejka mention the cone analogy, and Foale concedes at the top of page 2-24 that the actual corner radius described is considerably greater than the cone radius." Thus, it is not mentioned here or in the bicycle and motorcycle dynamics article. -AndrewDressel (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It's mentioned at least three times in this article. Once under Countersteering#Bikes_vs_automobiles : The lean of a bike's wheels causes a turning force in the direction of the lean, called camber thrust, which enables the bike to negotiate turns with substantially less steering angle of the front wheel than an automobile for the same turn radius. (The reason for reduced steering angle is because lean angle geometrically increases the effect of steering angle). Camber thrust is mentioned twice under Countersteering#How_it_works : The resulting roll angle to the left causes the tires to then generate camber thrust to the left providing the centripetal forces required to turn left. and Countersteering is necessary to adjust the angle of lean of a bicycle and works in the opposite sense to the handlebar input while conventional steering in the direction of the turn is used in conjunction with camber thrust to negotiate the turn. In my opinion the references to camber thrust should be removed. Perhaps adding a statement to the effect that the lean angle is adjusted so that the outwards torque related to cornering forces counters the inwards torque related to gravity. Rcgldr (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

By "it" in my last sentence, I mean the "rolling cone" model or the "cone analogy". "It" is not mentioned in this article because "it" is not discussed in the camber thrust article because I have not found any good sources for "it". I do not understand why you think mention of camber thrust should be removed. Perhaps you believe that camber thrust and the "rolling cone" model are synonymous. I haven't found any credible source that suggest that to be the case. -AndrewDressel (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

My point about camber thrust being debatable is that the actual radius of a turn is basically equal (within 2%) to the geometric radius based on lean angle and steering angle. Extend the axis lines of the front and rear tires of a bike; the point on the surface above the intersection of those lines is the geometric center of the instantaneous circular path of a bike. In otherwords, the lean of the bike decreases the actual radius of the turn proportionally to the cosine of the lean angle from Motorcycle_physics#Steering_angle. If camber thrust was a significant factor, then the actual radius of a turn should be signficantly smaller than the geometric radius, but this is not what happens. Rcgldr (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah ha. Now I think I get your point. Do you have a reference for that 2% value? The trick will be incorporating it. Models of bikes with rigid wheels do indeed corner, but as far as I've seen, all real bikes ridden be people have tires, which have been found to generate lateral forces by at least two different mechanisms: side-slip and camber thrust. Current research suggests that camber thrust is the mechanism by which a cambered bike tire generates the majority of the lateral force it produces, hence the current wording of this article. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

"Do you have a reference for that 2% value?" It's the very next statement in Motorcycle_physics#Steering_angle, continuing from the previous statement I quoted: Second, the lean of the bike decreases the actual radius of the turn proportionally to the cosine of the lean angle. The resulting radius can be roughly approximated (within 2% of exact value) by: (followed by a formula). I think I've seen that "within 2% reference elsewhere, but can't seem to find the article that described the radius as being centered about a point on the surface above where the axis lines intersect, which would be the same as proportional to the cosine of the lean angle mentioned in the wiki article. Rcgldr (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

That formula provided in Motorcycle_physics#Steering_angle is from Cossalter and is just for the kinematics. I don't believe it includes or considers tire effects. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding camber thrust versus side slip, it would seem that both are just deformations in response to a lateral load. For both car and motorcycle tires, you'd have some combination of both lateral (camber thrust) and rotational (slip angle) deformation at the contact patch. In the case of a wide racing tire for a car, it would seem that most of the deformation would be lateral, simply because of the relatively wide (side to side) shape of the contact patch. There's also deformation related to braking or accelerating loads, called slip ratio. Getting back to my point, I'm not sure that references to how contact patches deform under loads are needed in an article about countersteering. Rcgldr (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe it is correct to say that the slip angle would be zero if there was no lateral force on the tire, but I'm not sure that the same is true for camber thrust. The deformation due purely to the vertical load will be asymmetrical in a cambered tire, and so probably the lateral force will be also. It is also not clear how much of the total lateral force is contributed by each mechanism. Cossalter reports that for motorcycles under most circumstances, camber thrust is actually slightly larger than necessary for equilibrium of a bike leaning in a turn.

Back to your point. I believe that the mention of camber thrust in this article is in direct response to questions in the past about how the centripetal force is generated. Of all the mechanism, camber thrust get's the mention because of Cossalter's assertion, but perhaps it is a case of TMI. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, my issue is the implication that leaning a bike causes it to turn. Countersteering is used to adjust lean angle, while normal steering is used to actually turn. From a vertical position, the lateral forces that lean a bike also cause centripetal acceleration in the "wrong" direction. It's common in a motorcycle race to see riders hanging off a bike while approaching a turn and still going straight. This results in the bike leaning the "wrong" way, but the bike is going straight. There's deformation at the contact patch, but no lateral force. If there is a camber thrust effect, it's in a vertical direction (with a rider hanging off and the bike going straight). Rcgldr (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll buy that a bike could still turn without camber thrust, by cornering force if the tires were somehow kept vertical and by pure rigid body kinematics if the wheels were rigid bodies; and that a bike can still go straight despite camber thrust. By analogy an airplane can turn without banking, by using only the rudder, and an airplane can fly straight when it is banked, also by using the rudder. Above, though, it sounds as if you are suggesting that camber thrust does not exist, and I believe that is completely counter to current understanding of motorcycle tires and the role they play in handling and stability. The scenarios you describe are much more likely explained as examples of cross-controlling: leaning one way and steering the other. Cornering stiffness is usually much higher, per degree, than camber stiffness, and so only a small steering angle is required to counter a large camber angle. Never-the-less, the available literature asserts that camber thrust is sufficient, by itself, for generating the centripetal force necessary to negotiate most turns, up to about 30 degrees of camber, an angle which is rarely reached in normal riding. -AndrewDressel (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with camber thrust. It's just a description for the deformation of the contact patch on a round tire when leaned over. Both the tires on a bike and a car will have lateral deformation in response to lateral force, so I'm not sure what's special about the tires on a bike. It's not clear how much camber thrust reduces the required steering input (assuming the stated 2% tolerance versus geometrical basis didn't take this into account). Steering inputs (relative to the bike's frame) are affected by other factors, such as the relative difference (if any) between the slip angles at the front and rear tire.

Camber thrust is not simply a description of deformation, it is a description of the lateral force generated by the deformation caused by camber. Yes, both car and bike tires generate camber thrust, but the small range of camber angles experienced by car tires is compounded by "the relatively low camber stiffness of the car and truck tyre," (Pacejka, 2006, page 80) to make camber thrust a much smaller issue on multi-track vehicles. That has been found to be far from the case with bikes. Plus, some initial lateral force and accompanying lateral deformation is not necessary for a cambered tire to generate camber thrust, which is quite different from the situation with slip angle and cornering force. One consequence of this difference is that camber thrust seems to appear instantaneously with camber angle, unlike cornering force, which takes finite time and distance rolled to build up to a steady-state value after a step change in slip angle. -AndrewDressel (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Getting back to countersteering in general, most of the motorcycles I've driven tend to straigthen up from a lean if you relax on the handlebars at moderate speeds, and I have to apply a counter-steering torque on the handlebars to maintain a lean angle. The combined effect is that I'm always applying a counter-steering torque on the handlebars (even though the actual steering angle is inwards during most of a turn) when cornering. At very high (racing) speeds, most motorcycles will transition into a state where they tend to hold a lean angle instead of straightening up, in which case you can relax on the handlebars and the bike will hold a lean angle, and you have to countersteer inwards in order to straighten up. The dynamic charts show this to be a slighly unstable region where the bike should slowly fall inwards, but I suspect that this is countered by the outwards torque related to the contact patch being off to the inwards side of a tire when leaned over, or that the rate of inwards falling is so slow that it's imperceptible. Rcgldr (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Unindent. I've worded my previous comments poorly. My issue isn't with camber thrust, but the implication that leaning (as opposed to steering) can cause a bike to turn, for example this statement from Countersteering#Bikes_vs_automobiles : The lean of a bike's wheels causes a turning force in the direction of the lean. That statement seems similar to "cone analogy". As to camber thrust versus lean angle, a rider could hang off to the inside of a bike in order to decrease the lean angle of the tires, but for a given turn (speed and radius the same) the lateral force is the same, and I assume camber thrust and slip angle would remain about the same as the rider not hanging off. Rcgldr (talk) 04:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think I understand what you are saying. Although camber thrust may be the mechanism by which leaning bike tires actually generate the necessary lateral force, it is not necessary nor sufficient by itself to account for the change in direction. It is sort of similar to the role of gyroscopic effects in stability. They have been found to be neither necessary nor sufficient by themselves, but they do have a significant effect on the stability and handling of the average bike. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Unindent. Let me propose a solution to our impasse: simply remove all mention of how the centripetal force is generated, and leave it to the article on bicycle and motorcycle dynamics. I suspect that you are correct in that the mechanism by which centripetal force is generated is not necessary to the discussion of countersteering. -AndrewDressel (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

That's fine with me. For me the main point of countersteering is that it used to initiate, maintain, or adjust lean angle and also can be used to straighten up if a rider doesn't want to wait for self recovery. To get a true sense of countersteering, it helps if the rider tries to remain in a fixed position with respect to the motorcycle (no hanging off or body leaning), only using steering inputs to control lean angle. Rcgldr (talk) 03:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Bikes vs automobiles

From Countersteering#Bikes_vs_automobiles, Automobiles steer by imposing a steer angle between the front and rear wheels. ... Bikes steer by controlling roll angle.. Bikes steer similar to automobiles, except that the lean angle affects steering angle. The geometric center of a circle related to lean and steering angle on a bicycle or motorcycle is the point on the surface above the intersection of the extended axis lines of the front and rear wheels. The actual radius will usually be within 2% of the geometrical radius.

A bike will turn in the direction it is steered, regardless of lean angle. The bike may end up on it's side, but until then, lateral force / mass = centripetal acceleration. The purpose of counter-steering is to adjust the lean angle so that in a steady turn, the outwards torque related to conering forces counters the inwards torque related lean angle and gravity, and also to adjust lean angle (decrease lean angle by steering further inwards, increase lean angle by steering further outwards). Rcgldr (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This article is about riding bikes, not walking them. How a bike negotiates a turn without maintaining balance is somewhat less interesting. -AndrewDressel (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

My point was that leaning doesn't cause a motorcycle to turn. If the front wheel is locked straight ahead, a bike will not turn if leaned, it will travel in a nearly straight line and fall over. As far as turning without maintaining balance, I've done this to avoid small hazards like potholes in a road. You positive steer the tires around the hazard, even though it momentarily results in an imbalance. Rcgldr (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

My point was that leaning doesn't cause a motorcycle to turn. - I should have mentioned that although physically this isn't what happens, from a rider's perspective, it feel's like leaning causes a motorcycle to turn, except at very slow speeds. Rcgldr (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, causality is a little tricky to parse out. First, it is easy to find counter examples to just about everything: a leaning bike does not necessarily turn, and a turning bike does not necessarily lean (although the combined center of mass must for a steady-state turn). Second, if lean causes steer and steer causes turn, people will argue all day and all night about whether lean causes turn or steer causes turn. In my opinion, however, since on most bikes leaning usually does result in steering and that steering usually does result in turning, it would be difficult to argue with a rider's perception that leaning usually does cause turning. This is how it is possible to control the heading of many bicycles pretty accurately with no hands on the handle bars. The technique is just much less effective on motorcycles. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

technique makes it sound like something optional

The usage of the word technique makes it sound like there is another way to turn a motorcycle at high speeds and this is just a "technique". I am not sure if this is true, I am of the opinion that there is only one way to and that is to counter steer. --Inayity (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that, but when creeping, you don't countersteer. It is also possible to just shift your weight, but that gives you only a very tiny amount of lean. What if we just remove the word technique, it doesn't need to be there anyway: "Countersteering is used by single-track vehicle operat...".

One problem here is that the whole article is full of the word "technique". Most places it can just be eliminated, but in this "physical phenomena" part, it can't. I think the physical phenomena is wrong anyway, countersteering is ALWAYS what the rider does, like "I countersteer now", not "the bike is countersteering". These paragraphs should be removed imo. Not citations here either.

How about removing both "technique" and "deliberate countersteering" (I have previously replaced all "conscious countersteering" with this)?

I agree with the fact that you can countersteer by shifting your weight and that this is easier to do the lighter the bike is.

If nobody complains about these changes in a couple of days, I'll do it! Atlesn (talk) 10:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds fine, because technique is actually missing leading and only fringe opinions say it is an option. Per Keith Code research.--Inayity (talk) 10:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have made a quite a few changes now. The word Technique is removed, and countersteering is now what the rider does. I have also removed text in many places which were uncited and wrong. Some paragraphs have been moved around in the article (MORE CLEANUP NEEDED), and duplicate paragraphs have been removed. Some language fixes here and there. Atlesn (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, I have removed some text which only referred to steering, leaning etc. in general. This has been removed as other articles coves that. I think the article is way more readable and understandable now, but if I've removed something which should be there (is about countersteering and not just steering, is not duplicated) it can be added back.

Atlesn (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I did some copyediting.Some concerns below. — Brianhe (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Time required for countersteering

One item concerns me as it seems counterintuitive as a rider, and opposite to what I've read elsewhere. The statement at issue is "Gentle turns might require only 0.125 seconds, while sharp turns might require a whole second of countersteering". The source cite is not available online so I can't confirm, but intuitively, a full second of countersteering seems like it would be appropriate for a large-radius but high speed corner. As written, it also completely leaves out the issue of speed, which is explicitly included in the equation later (section Need to lean to turn), in a seemingly contradictory fashion. "Sharp" is ambiguous in this case, and and I would argue it is actually incorrect if "sharp" simply means "small radius" and normal (non-laboratory) rider behavior. The whole thing is so wrapped up in assumptions about applied force on the controls, rate of reaching a desired lean angle, and typical corner entry speed for a given radius turn, it's hard to follow under what assumptions this statement was made. — Brianhe (talk) 04:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that, but I think the length of the steering command depends mostly on how low you want to go and not on speed. I nicked the text from the motorcycle safety article and rewrote it, it was kind of neat because it covered the case about people not noticing doing it. Maybe I can find something else. Atlesn (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I rewrote the sentence, making the point that riders often are unaware of countersteering. Do you think it's good now? Atlesn (talk) 10:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Body steering

I'd be happy to see a more concise debunking of this "technique". I thought lean steering had been completely ruled out, and riders are always applying force to the handlebars, even if unconsciously. I believe the last EL to Keith Code's website makes this quite clear. (edited to add following) David L. Hough says in More Proficient Motorcycling, p. 93 "Every rider of a two-wheeler countersteers, whether he or she realizes it or not." — Brianhe (talk) 05:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It's impossible to do on a motorcycle, but it seems to be possible on bicycles. Maybe move the section to the bicycle section with smaller header? Atlesn (talk) 10:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Out of curiosity I had to check that "impossible" statement someone claiming to do it--Inayity (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

How is that Countersteering? You can clearly see his him leaning into the turn and the bike following gradually after. Atlesn (talk) 07:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not counter steering it is lean steering to turn the bike. Keith Code says it cannot be done, i.e. you can only turn by counter. So I dont know.--Inayity (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The article already addresses this issue pretty well, with references: it is possible, and its effectiveness is approximately inversely proportional to the mass of the bike. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Is the article roughly done now?

I think the overall structure and content of the article is good now. I think it's possible to read it throughout without getting confused. It can be flicked on here and there of course, but what do you think about the order of the different sections for example? And are there any conflicting statements? Cheers, Atlesn (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

We'll see. The article had been the result of a lot of discussion and compromise between many editors, and you have removed a great deal of content. Wikipedia is a different place now, with many fewer editors concerned about or paying attention to this topic so maybe your changes will stick, but only time will tell. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Who is Leif Klyve?

He is cited twice in the article, and a Google search of "Leif Klyve" and the title of his supposed booklet "Full Control" yields only 4 hits, and two of them are this article. That hardly seems like a published, reliable source. I certainly have no way to verify it. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hard to say esp when something is non-English. But I dont know if it is major problem. Try Norway search engine--Inayity (talk) 12:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This book is published by the Norwegian Motorcycle Union, which Leif Klyve is affiliated with. Parts of it is included in training material. According to a news article it is printed in 140 000 samples in five different languages (bad source, but anyway). I found an English PDF also. I didn't know about the translation until now, maybe it's better to use this one?

Atlesn (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't find any ISBN for the English version, maybe it isn't published. It is however referred to from FEMA.

Atlesn (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

apply automatic countersteer to a free leaning vehicle

Likewise it is possible to apply automatic countersteer to a free leaning vehicle. In this type the driver input is connected to a reversed steer of the front wheel/s and the lean of the vehicle is connected to a positive steer of the steerable wheel/s. The two actions are connected by a differential linkage so that the initial countersteer input leans the vehicle and then the lean of the vehicle causes positive steer until a new steady state is achieved automatically. In this case the driver steers the control exactly as he does a motorcar but the vehicle responds exactly as a motorcycle. The important point being that "countersteer" is fundamentally a vehicle condition and not necessarily a human condition.

So, is is merely possible? Or has it actually been done and documented? If the former, it doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia. If the latter, then that documentation needs to be cited. -AndrewDressel (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, Phillip here, yes it has been done and documented [in 1984] This was an important step in the understanding of countersteer. because it removed the rider from the equation. The " differential linkage" can be viewed as a mechanical computer powered by inertia. The vehicle needed to be in motion[ above aprox 5mph] so below this speed the vehicle was locked and the steering input from the driver was reversed back to " normal". I reframed my comments to include the patent application where the details are on record. WO/1987/002951 SELF STABILIZING CAMBERING VEHICLE

It appears that the patent was not actually granted, right? Then the patent application was withdrawn in 1988. That means that no independent authority confirms that this works, and while this sounds like an exciting development, it does not yet appear to meet the standards of Wikipedia: that articles should be based on reliable, published sources. I am sorry, but your contribution should remain here, on the talk page, until a third-party can confirm the claim. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Phillip back see this link. This should satisfy any concerns. By the way, its not at all unusual for a patent application to be withdrawn before issue. The application was examined and the record was established.

Yes, the Wheels Magazine article does satisfy my concerns. That it is not unusual for a patent application to be withdrawn before issue does not make such a patent application any more suitable as a reliable source. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The text before this reference did not match the explanation given for this trike. The steering of it was simply reversed so that you kindof pushed left to go right. The leaning was only controlled by countersteering BUT it could be locked upright also. When locked, the steering was NOT reversed, making it steer like a car. There were no mechanical stuff to control the leaning automatically except for the ability to lock it. - Atlesn (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Phillip here with a suggestion. The opening paragraph of the article says "the scientific literature does not make a clear definition of countersteer etc etc".I suggest there is one. " Countersteer is any wheel steer angle that produces a lean/tilt force" A STV in all notional steady states will "by definition" show no countersteer. A STV experiencing any transitional state MUST show countersteer and these facts are confirmed by all of the other parts of the article. In other words a STV cant move from one state to another without countersteer being evident and the riders perception is unimportant although interesting to observe. Its important to emphasize that the riders may not know consciously what they are doing or what is happening. However all riders know the facts subconsciously because to run requires countersteer of the feet. If we observe the foot prints of a runner at speed its clear that the path of the feet diverge into a countertsteered path prior to moving onto the intended path. The exception is a " sidestep" where the rider plants one foot off center so to " force tilt" his body and this is exactly the principle applied by force tilted tilting vehicles although, they can use both techniques. The main point however, is that any person who has run knows subconsciously what countersteer is but unfortunately for some, this connection is confused in an emergency when they attempt " sidestep" on a STV and realize there is nothing like that possible.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.175.163.39 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 19 November 2014‎

But what use is a definition of countersteering composed by a Wikipedia editor? We can't put that in the article. We either find a definition given by our sources, or we admit that the experts don't agree on the definition. Inventing one of our own is original research. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Phillip here, just listed the Patent for the CARVER vehicle that describes their automatic countersteer device applied to their vehicle. Sorry I cant work out how to do the references properly can someone do this please. In this patent they call it " opposite lock power transmitter" but what Kroonen means is " countersteer transmitter" and its just a twist in translation. As this patent issued I assume it will be suitable as a reference. Have corrected some confusing editing. A motorcycle control is fundamentally torque based wheras a motorcar is fundamentally displacement based. The " experimental vehicle" is displacement based. In a motorcycle the rider cant position the control element [ bars] or the vehicle will fall over. In a motorcar the driver can position the control. In the " experimental vehicle" the driver can position the control without destroying the underlying self stabalising characteristics which cause the steerable wheels to steer into any fall regardless of the drivers position on the control element.

I did suggest a reference to the patent application to make sure that this sort of confusion did not arise. As the patent application is supported by the wheels magazine article I suggest that a link is provided to it. Phillip Phillip back, The article needs to accept the use of the term " Automatic countersteer" as distinct from " countersteer". I quote a fellow editor quote "Removed stuff about balance. Removed automatic, this is 100% manual, only reversed countersteering. Also, centrifugal force does not turn the wheels into the turn after countersteering, gravity and other stuff does that.)" end of quote. My comment : firstly on centrifugal force. The vehicle in question uses a kinematic linkage to turn the wheels it does not work as the proposed edit describes it to work . Gravity and " other stuff" has no effect on the turning of the wheels in the experimental vehicle. Centrifugal force is generated by the automatic countersteer and this acts on the mass of the vehicle to roll it. Then, mechanical linkages kinematically steer the wheels. The expression " Automatic countersteer" is correct. The driver makes no manual destabilizing input [ the destabilizing input is what countersteer is in a conventional system] In the experimental vehicle the countersteer is automatic. The driver positive steers the vehicle and makes no countertsteer on his manual control and so, the countersteer is defined as " automatic" Please make a constructive effort to engage on the talk page. Regards Phillip. Have reinserted the patent application reference that is referred to in the WHEELS Magazine to assist fellow editors and readers to understand the vehicle.

I have undone a lot of edits by the unregistered user. The reason why I changed the initial text was that it described the trike in a way contradictory to what the reference says. The version of the text which the unregistered user now wants to put in there also contains elements which the reference does not cover, please read WP:OR. The patent application does not support the text either. And to the facts:

• This trike does not steer exactly like a motorcar. The reference says that the trike balances like a two-wheeler, making the steering wheel rotate when the steering dynamics turn the wheels to balance it. A car doesn't do that.
• The wheels does not automatically countersteer. They simply turn in the opposite direction of the steering wheel, which is operated completely manually. Other vehicles might have automatic countersteering, this one hasn't.
• Balance loop is undefined in the reference
• The balancing of the vehicle does not fit in this article, which is about countersteering.

Atlesn (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Phillip here with the facts 1] the vehicle does steer exactly like a car and I quote my words" The driver of this trike applied displacement to the steering wheel in the same direction as the turn exactly as in a motorcar. 2] the vehicle does balance like a two wheeler.Note the two statements are not contradictory because the driver steers exactly like a car AND the vehicle balances exactly like a motorcycle. "Balancing loop" is a common control system expression. With regard the term Automatic countersteer. The driver does not countersteer the countersteer is automatic. I will now edit the page.You need to address my points Regards Phillip — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.120.26 (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The reference says that at low speed it acts as a normal vehicle, and this is because the leaning is locked. The reference also says that when in reverse and unlocked mode, it is a car-type trike with leaning. One might think that this refers to the steering, but it isn't written out. The reference does not say that the trike has automatic countersteering. You can't just write stuff which isn't supported by a reliable source, that is considered original research, please read WP:OR. Articles may become protected from editing by unregistered users when edit conflicts like this arise. Atlesn (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Phillip here, there is a simple solution. The Wheels Article has been accepted as a reference. The wheels article makes reference to a patent application relating to the vehicle. The application is on the record and explains in detail how the vehicle works.

So, make the patent application accessible and then we can rewrite the text of the article based solely on the terminology used in the application. This application was examined by the patent examiner in the USA and approved for issue and this can be verified. The only reason why the patent did not issue is because it was withdrawn because it was a " defensive disclosure" google this if you don't know what it is. The facts of the matter is that " countersteer" was not a term commonly used in patent applications in 1984 due to the general confusion that existed at that time. I maintain that if the term is applicable due to its better understanding today, it must be used. Phillip — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.213.163.53 (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The patent application is not a reliable published source. It is also very vague. It says that a lean to the left causes the wheels to turn left, however all bikes does that. Point being that WP policy says Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source., ref WP:OR. If you find something more in the Wheels-article or some other reliable published source which is relevant to countersteering, please feel free to edit in some. Atlesn (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Phillip here, The patent application is not vague. It appears vague to you. The difference between the " experimental vehicle" and a motorcycle is that in a motorcycle a lean to the left causes the wheels to turn left due to dynamic forces related to the geometry of the front wheel. In the experimental vehicle the turn of the wheels into the direction of the lean is KINEMATIC. That is, there is a mechanical connection that steers the wheels mechanically due to lean action. I accept that you find it " vague" but the patent application is precise in its description Please go to this link to see that I have added a video of the vehicle to assist you

http://www.tiltingvehicle.net/ACS.html I seek no editing war. As the Wright brothers had difficulty explaining countersteer so don't assume that anything has changed! Cambering (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

We can't use the patent application as reference. Personally, I find this trike very interesting and would love to learn more about how it works, but we really to need a reliable published source to write about it on WP. Also, this article is about countersteering, so in my version of this paragraph, I only included facts which where relevant to that. Maybe we should replace The steering dynamics of the trike then caused the... with An inbuilt roll-steer effect then caused the as the reference says? Atlesn (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, I can't run ActiveX as i don't run Windows, upload it to YouTube! Atlesn (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

hello, and thanks for your constructive engagement I would love to explain it to you! Firstly, you need to appreciate that the patent application was examined and approved by the USPTO for issue.[ I can provide evidence] It is not uncommon not to proceed to issue and this is called a "defensive disclosure" [ google] I also accept that the workings of this vehicle are technically difficult to grasp and the Wheels journalist was not in any position to describe it in detail. The article refers the Phil James as the inventor and the Patent application likewise and I am the inventor. I initially did not seek to put my name forward as the inventor because I don't believe that this is important[ certainly not to me]. However,I have a long interest in countersteer and all I am trying to do is keep the Wikipedia Article up to date with the " latest developments"[ even if it happened 30 years ago].

The patent application while difficult, is precisely worded and correct. This type of precision is generally not easily understood except by patent lawyers. All I seek to do is to simplify the wording. I will do as you suggest and put the video on U tube. I hope that eventually we can both come to a compromise and I wish no " warring" Regards PhillipCambering (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Phillip Back Wikipedia wont accept any U tube content link to the vehicle video. Another "catch 22"? contact me at phillip.james7@bigpond.com Cambering (talk) 03:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Phillip back see http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Template:Citation/patent. It seems to me that Wikipedia DOES accept citations to US Patent APPLICATIONS Please read the article and then please confirm here that you wont act contrary to Wikipedia policy.

I can provide my USPTO application and then we can write the article based on it and the problem will be solvedCambering (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore on closer reading European patent applications are also acceptable to Wikipedia as a citation. This is exactly the citation that I have been refused permission to use here. Why is this so?Cambering (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

No. A patent applicatipn is not a reliable source, and the existence of a patent reference template does not change that fact. Instead, the relevant guideline can be found at WP:PATENTS. It states:

Patent applications and issued patents must be treated as self-published, non-independent, primary sources for Wikipedia purposes. A patent application is written by the inventor-applicant, and patent authorities have essentially no control over its content or whether it gets published. -AndrewDressel (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Phillip here OK I take your point Andrew. Now lets examine the situation. The " experimental vehicle" was first described in layman's language by me. It was rejected by you due to lack of a published reference. It was then accepted due to the 1987 Wheels article which included the fact that the Journalist could not reveal details prior to a patent application but instead gave a very brief summary.

This caused many conflicting edits by some people here who freely admit that they don't understand how the vehicle works but nevertheless that did not stop them trying to divine how it works from the incomplete description by the journalist. In an attempt to make it clear to them I link to a patent application but they again fail due to a lack of technical ability to read patent descriptions [ I am feeling more like the Wright Brothers with every passing minute], but that's fine. I then provide video of the vehicle in action filmed in 1984 and its clearly the same vehicle that is described in the wheels article and it is also clear from the video that the driver is making displacement inputs same as a car while the vehicle itself behaves dynamically like a motorcycle. I believe this is a fair summary. However, there is a larger problem existing. The current description by one of the editors has been locked into the Wikipedia article in a state that is false and misleading. This problem is the most pressing problem. I again respectfully suggest that before anyone attempts to describe the vehicle they first make a serious attempt to understand the patent application. With a little effort it will become obvious how the " experimental vehicle " works. It is not then necessary to link to the patent application. Regards "that thing wont ever fly", Phillip.Cambering (talk) 05:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

What do you think is misleading? Maybe that can be removed. Details about how it is built isn't provided, so we'll have to deal with the description in the Wheels-article for now. I think it is enough to explain how it was countersteered. Atlesn (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I modified the text again, removing "steering dynamics" and emphasizing that the leaning is what's turning the wheels, however it is done mechanically. If I understand this correctly, the wheels is turned by the leaning without affecting the steering wheel, is this right? Problem is that this isn't in the Wheels-article, but i think we can safely rule out the displacement-stuff and still understand some of it. Atlesn (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

This whole topic should get only a very brief mention. One sentence should do it, and here are the reasons why:

1. It has become obvious that this detail is being pushed by someone with a very clear conflict of interest.
2. The only reliable source is a single magazine article. The patent application and the youtube videos are both self-published and therefore not reliable.
3. This is a prototype that never went into production, and more than a brief mention is giving it undu weight

Phillip, I am sorry that wikipedia cannot be the soapbox from which you relaunch your invention, but that is not its purpose. You need to find some other venue to promote your technology. I suggest that something broad, such as

Prototype tilting multi-track vehicles have been developed that attempt to modify or eliminate the need for the driver to countersteer.

is sufficient, and the magazine article can serve as a source. There is no need to provide any further details in this article. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Phillip here to answer some questions. To Atlesn Yes,the wheels are turned by the leaning without affecting the steering wheel and likewise, the wheels are initially countersteered [ automatically] without affecting the lean[ momentarily to create centrifugal force]. This is because of the " differential linkage" that connects all three sources 1]driver input on steering wheel 2]lean input 3]steerable wheels steer angle. IT IS a " differential computer powered by inertia" That's the best way to clearly describe it.

To the other claim that I have a conflict of interest. Not so. I have no interest other than to expand general knowledge of how" countertseer works" and this vehicle is a very good example of this. Since this vehicle[ 1984] I have developed other tilting vehicles that I am currently promoting that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Wheels Magazine vehicle www.tiltingvehicle.com

I did NOT wish to have my name associated with the article in Wikipedia, this was forced onto me by fellow editors. On another point with regard linking to patents/applications. It is accepted Wikipedia policy to allow the fact that an application exists to be stated in an article and linked. I suggest that a simple statement referring to the vehicle with a link to a] the Wheels article and b] the patent application[ referred to in the Wheels magazine], would be acceptable and leaves it up to the reader to investigate further if they so wish. But, I object to editors making their own interpretations when they are not technically equipped to do this.

I came here with good intentions, with no wish to promote anything other that a better understanding of "countersteer". Regards,PhillipCambering (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

To support my position I quote Wikipedia policy with regard patent applications as follows: "Thus both issued patents and patent applications have extremely limited use as sources on Wikipedia:

They are reliable for simple, descriptive statements about their existence (e.g., "A patent was issued on to Alice Expert on May 5, 2010...").

However, I would prefer that my name was not mentioned directly in the Article so it might read like this:

"A multi track tilting vehicle was reportedly developed where its countersteer was created in a unique manner and this vehicle was observed by a journalist from Wheels Magazine, Australia. The vehicle was subsequently the subject of a patent application WO/1987/002951 SELF STABILIZING CAMBERING VEHICLE] "

This statement complies with the guidelines of Wikipedia. Cheers PhillipCambering (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Doing what Andrew says solves the problem we're having with describing the vehicle based on the Wheels article, so I vote for that. Maybe we can be more detailed about the concept later if more sources get available which covers the technical stuff better. - Atlesn (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Phillip here, I maintain that a link to the patent application is the best way to describe the " technical stuff". This then provides the readers with access to the best possible technical description but, this description is not forced onto them if they don't want to investigate it. Furthermore, simply stating that there is a patent application and linking to it, is NOT in contravention of Wikipedia policy. It would also be valuable to link to the CARVER patents. In this example the vehicle has been in production. But again, there is no need to directly attempt to describe the "opposite lock steer transmitter" that is fitted to these production vehicles, all that is required is to state that a patent has issued to Brinks Dynamics and let the readers seek out the description. In this way Wikipedia is keeping pace with the latest developments re "countersteering" which is what the idea of an encyclopedia is surely? - Cambering (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I declare what some might term a "conflict of interest", they would be wrong. I have edited the page on the suitability of patents as a source. I did this not to advance my argument here [nothing I did advanced it] But, the article was inaccurate and biased. But to be fair I am reporting this to you For all its faults [and trust me I know them] the patents system is the largest source of technical information on the planet. - Cambering (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I have been informed by Sam Walton that the article is open for editing once more. Before attempting to do this I am trying to obtain consensus here. The first pressing point is that the current description of the "experimental vehicle" is misleading and must be corrected. This is not to be unexpected given that the editor who wrote it admits that he does not understand how it works. The general thrust of the dispute is that no descriptions of how it works can be included that are not supported by the cited Wheels magazine. However, the journalist who wrote the magazine states clearly "we cant give the full details because patent applications have not yet been lodged". My point now is that there should be a reference to this subsequent patent application and my point is supported by the Wikipedia guidelines that allows references to patent applications to prove the actual existence of them as a fact.

Furthermore, I suggest that the article be expanded to include the CARVER automatic countersteer system. Again, there is no need to attempt to explain how that system works, all that is needed is a statement to the effect that "Automatic countersteer vehicles have been developed and patents have been applied for" [or something similar, we can work on that], and then we link to the patent applications to support the statement. In this way we don't get bogged down attempting lengthy descriptions [although I am technically capable of this as I have a complete understanding in this technical field]. It was put that the "experimental vehicle" was not a production vehicle and this is accepted, however the CARVER was a production vehicle. Both applications proceeded past the examination phase. One more point. You wont see the word "countersteer" used in patents much simply because it has not yet fully entered into the language and it is open to dispute in a court, a problem that I believe we all have a common interest to remedy. I repeat, I was motivated to participate here because of the general high quality of the work that has gone into the countersteering article and all I am seeking to do is to expand it. We all seek the same thing surely? Phillip - Cambering (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you make an example here? Atlesn (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed the experimental word and added that the wheels were leaning in parallel with the body for correctness. Atlesn (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed all the details except for the fact, supported by the single reference, that prototype tilting multi-track vehicles have been developed that attempt to modify or eliminate the need for the driver to countersteer. Anything more than this is giving the issue weight far beyond what a single magazine article deserves. This also solves the problem of inaccurate descriptions. I don't see how the fact that a patent was applied for and then withdrawn is relevant in any way to countersteering, and the Carver vehicle is already mentioned in the same section. -AndrewDressel (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Phillip here Andrew I disagree. " Attempt" suggests that it has not been " achieved". It has been achieved. Furthermore, subject is NOT solely related to the Wheels article, but also to the patent application. The fact that the application was withdrawn is irrelevant. It has entered into Prior Art. The experimental vehicles existence is in the prior art[ a patent office term] and that is an established fact. My strong point that has not been addressed by any other editor is the use of links to the patent applications for both the Experimental vehicle and also the Carver production vehicle. A link to a patent application or issued patent IS within the guidelines of Wikepedia to prove the fact of the documents existence. Please address this specific point to see if we can reach consensus. Regards PhillipCambering (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't dispute that the vehicle, which is pictured in the magazine article, existed. That article, however, only verifies what was attempted, not what was actually achieved. The patent application is of no use here, as already explained above, and I see no point in mentioning it. Your continued insistence on inserting a link to the patent only strengthens the case that you have a conflict of interest with this issue. -AndrewDressel (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)