At 03:59 PM 2/18/2005 +0100, you wrote: >Hi mad recumbent scientists ;-) >(I assume that this mailinglist is the most weird recumbent >hombuilder forum in the internet - but I love it) Somebody has to do it... >Playing around with Ray´s app I got confirmed at least one >thing, that is noticeable in real life too: > >The more weight is on the front wheel or pivot, the more >stable the python is when coasting. Traylor's bikes have almost all the weight up front, as did penny-farthings. I noticed that moving the front mass location forward always helped, until it moved a bit forward of the contact patch. >>>Then we could just prolong the wheelbase! > >I have another proposal: >Why not move the pivot about 20 cm towards the rear - that >means behind the seat. In the calculator, I tried: wheelbase 52 trail -10 pivot 16deg rear mass ht 16 rear mass dist 22 front mass ht 15 front mass to pivot 13 It appears very stable! But it also seems very sensitive to variations. An angle of 42 and trail of -12 also appears usable. It is less sensitive to wheelbase differences. >High time to build an experimental scrap python - I will call >it PX. >Experiments sceduled so far: > >- pivot angle of 60 deg and smallish negative trail >- pivot moved 20 cm backward >- rubber pivot >- four bar linkage pivot - telescopic rear frame, for wheelbase adjustment - clamp or screw adjustable pivot angle (screws like on telescope mount alt adjusters). Two would be needed, one each side of the pivot. Changing the distance from the front axle to the pivot might be too hard. >Link not worky. Eek! They just re-did their site. The new page: http://ruina.tam.cornell.edu/research/ is much improved though. The thesis is at: http://ruina.tam.cornell.edu/research/topics/bicycle_mechanics/papers/comparisons_stability_analysis.pdf Also, I just found: http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/BicycleEng/dahon.htm - look about halfway down for General Stability Considerations form http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/bikebooks.htm Ray