Comment by bnetd
4 days ago
> EDIT 1/14/2025: this article went viral on hacker news and now I have a bunch of comments telling me the above is wrong; mea culpa, I was never great at physics and apparently copy-pasting the explanation from the first google hit for "how do bikes stay upright" is not trustworthy in 2025. All I really care to say is that there's something mysterious and ineffable about balancing on a bike when you're a little kid that's hard to master when you're also trying to get a grip on pedaling, and your every instinct is to brake whenever you get scared, which will immediately tip you over.
Dear OP: don't worry about HN. They are insufferable cunts and have been for as long as I've been here (well over a decade).
I disagree. If the explanation is wrong it is good that someone points it out. You might not like the way they express this.
I just googled the same thing. Quite frankly I don't blame OP for getting it wrong, because the top result is from Cornell University.
> The accepted view: Bicycles are stable because of the gyroscopic effect of the spinning front wheel or because the front wheel "trails" behind the steering axis, or both.
https://ezramagazine.cornell.edu/summer11/researchspotlight....
If you're not already read into bicycle or motorcycle dynamics, the top google result sounds reasonable. Which makes it all the more ironic because they're talking about research which demonstrates, among other things, that it's a misconception to believe that gyroscopic forces are necessary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcZCzr9ExKk
It is quite confusing because there are strong points in favour of either POV.
Point: you can ride a bicycle without hands. That would be completely impossible without gyroscopic effect. Or you can push a bicycle forward without a rider.
Counter-point: kickscooters exist, with tiny little 6″ tyres which have almost no gyroscopic effect, and yet you can balance those in the same way as a bicycle.
> insufferable cunts
You mean pedants.