Clever idea, be interesting to see this developed by one of the big companies and how soon you could see something in the market. Agreed, great tune also
Not really a bike though, it has doors and a steering wheel. Great concept though and will give people the perfect excuse for chicken strips
It's only an upgraded Quaser FFS..........basically a Sinclair C5 on two wheels..... If you want a motorbike with a roof, buy an MR2......in fact you can get less in that than you can on a bike. AL.
Cool concept, wonder what powers the gyroscopes while parked up, and for how long ? Love Joy Division as well
Manufacturers have been looking for the holy grail for many decades: a motorbike for non-bikers, to increase the size of the market for their product. That is what scooters were, when invented in Italy in the 1940's. The bike-with-a-roof concept has had several runs, most interestingly the Quasar and the BMW C1, but never really taken off. The gyroscope-to-keep-it-upright concept has likewise been tried before, but the problem with it is: how do you go around corners? If this attempt had a petrol engine it would be worth considering, but the fact that it is a battery-electric bike (in addition to its other innovations) kills it. The builders might produce a petrol-engined prototype, if they have any sense.
So essentially a two-wheeled car. What's its lap time around Donnington? How fun is it to ride (drive). Not poo-pooing - just have some questions.
Let's try and think this through. An ordinary two-wheeler leans into each corner, and one way of inducing lean is counter steering. But the bike with gyroscopes cannot lean - that's the whole point. So if you counter-steer, that just means you will turn to the left when the road goes to the right. Perhaps the intention is for the bike to go around the corner bolt upright, like a car. If the inventors think that is an improvement on leaning into corners, they need to do some more research.
The ONLY way an ordinary two-wheeler leans into each corner is if counter steering, conciously induced by the rider or not, has happened. No, it can lean. The point of the extra gyros is to keep it upright and stable when it's not being steered and is not going quickly enough for the normal two wheels to produce any significant stabilizing force of their own. See point 1. It's impossible to make a bike turn 'normally' (ie. not in a 'speedway drift') without counter steering happening.
Some very bold and cagtegorical assertions there, Mac. Consider this: On a two-wheeler with the steering fixed in the straight ahead position, it is perfectly possible to steer by weight transfer, i.e. not by counter steering. On a push bike this is not all that hard to demonstrate. I think I'll stick with "...one way..." and "...normally..." as in my previous post. But perhaps you can substantiate your rather fierce "...ONLY..." and "...impossible..."?
Just facts of physics. Sorry if I came off aggressive - it's just a thing I've had to explain a lot over the years. Have you ever seen the 'no-BS' bike that Keith Code (cornering guru) invented? Have a Google for it. Yes, you can change a bike's direction by transfer of weight but it's not a useful method of cornering (I doubt you'd even make it round a corner). Code's "Twist of the Wrist 2" book and DVD explains it very nicely in layman's terms.
What you said was: " The ONLY way an ordinary two-wheeler leans into each corner is if counter steering, conciously induced by the rider or not, has happened." I pointed out another way. If I understand you correctly, you have now accepted this. So we can read your sentence without the "ONLY" - and get on with our lives.
You can get on with whatever you like. And if you stop acting like a child I might even explain why you don't understand me correctly.
