"The spirit in the machine", maybe?Well, to me, the trick of analyzing bike handling is the fact that it inevitably includes that unquantifiable entity known as "humans". The field of control theory really does prefer simple, linear systems. When you get into non-linear systems, such as the classic inverted pendulum (the Segway balancing system is a modern example), the analysis gets tougher. You have to do things like continually adjust the model based on position or speed. To make things even tougher to analyze, throw a human into the system. Specifically, throw just about any human into the system, and expect the results to product some sort of consistent results. It's not likely to happen. This is how you get into unwinnable conversations about what is best. Everyone has a different experience and different preferences. Plus, humans are good at self-delusion, so even if they all had the same experience, they would probably not know it or admit it. So here you've got a difficult system to analyze. As the space program has shown us, there's just about nothing that can't be solved by throwing a lot of money at it. Despite the abundance of carbon fiber and titanium, bikes aren't spacecraft, and there's not that much money in the industry. This is how we've arrived at the point where manufacturers have only vague ideas about what makes a bike's dynamics suitable for various applications. At least things have improved relative to 30 years ago. Maybe it's the influence of the internet; maybe it's the higher prices for bikes. I'm confident that bike manufacturers will continue to get smarter and bikes better.Steve in Peoria
Post a Comment
1 comment:
"The spirit in the machine", maybe?
Well, to me, the trick of analyzing bike handling is the fact that it inevitably includes that unquantifiable entity known as "humans". The field of control theory really does prefer simple, linear systems. When you get into non-linear systems, such as the classic inverted pendulum (the Segway balancing system is a modern example), the analysis gets tougher. You have to do things like continually adjust the model based on position or speed.
To make things even tougher to analyze, throw a human into the system. Specifically, throw just about any human into the system, and expect the results to product some sort of consistent results. It's not likely to happen. This is how you get into unwinnable conversations about what is best. Everyone has a different experience and different preferences. Plus, humans are good at self-delusion, so even if they all had the same experience, they would probably not know it or admit it.
So here you've got a difficult system to analyze. As the space program has shown us, there's just about nothing that can't be solved by throwing a lot of money at it. Despite the abundance of carbon fiber and titanium, bikes aren't spacecraft, and there's not that much money in the industry. This is how we've arrived at the point where manufacturers have only vague ideas about what makes a bike's dynamics suitable for various applications. At least things have improved relative to 30 years ago. Maybe it's the influence of the internet; maybe it's the higher prices for bikes. I'm confident that bike manufacturers will continue to get smarter and bikes better.
Steve in Peoria
Post a Comment