Talk:Countersteering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Cycling (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Motorcycling (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Motorcycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorcycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Countersteering: essential or beneficial?[edit]

The Hurt Report emphasized repeatedly and in no uncertain terms that ignorance of countersteering is a direct cause of motorcycle crashes. David Hough has at least 3 books that say the same thing, repeatedly. Every safety expert, motorcycle training course, and governemnt agency since then, and mostly likely before, going back to the Wright Brothers, has made it clear that consciously countersteering is not optional, it is essential. Yes, you can ride, but you cannot ride safely. Harry Hurt and David Hough and the others might agree with you that many riders are ignorant of countersteering, but they would present you with data which says that these untrained riders crash at a much higher rate than those who know how to coutnersteer, and that such riders contribute greatly to the fact that motorcycling is 30 or so times more dangerous than driving a car. I refer you to the sources listed in Motorcycle safety and related articles.

If you have quality sources which say that it isn't essential to consciously countersteer in order to ride a motorcycle safely, then please cite them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I 'd written: "In an ideal world, all motorcyclists would use countersteering. But many motorcyclists (particularly those who have not ridden off-road) have never heard of countersteering. Of course, one might argue that it is impossible to ride a bike at all without subconsciously countersteering, but I would still say (at the risk of entering into semantics) that countersteering is "beneficial" rather than "essential". To continue: It is axiomatic and universally accepted that a bike rider will be safer and more competent if he is aware of, and practises, counter steering, but even the most competent rider does not consciously think about it every bend. The article itself says (re bicycles): "..cyclists performing fast hill descents MAY also use conscious countersteering in order to initiate and manage the fast, precise turns necessary." Note the use of "may". The motorcycle section adds that counter steering is: "...is a part of the safe riding courses...". My point is that, as a conscious concept, countersteering is taught, not instinctive, and while the competent rider will be safer, that does not mean that uninformed riders will necessarily be unsafe or accident-prone. Arrivisto (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
So if I provide you with a list of citations which say that "uninformed riders, who are ignorant of countersteering, are unsafe", will that be satisfactory? I believe they are already listed in the articles I mentioned, but I can call them out one by one. And will you please cite the sources which say that countersteering training is nice but not necessary? -Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Not for the first time, it must be observed that the use of a confrontational tone and thinly-veiled sarcasm is unhelpful and out of place in Wikipedia. Good faith and civility promotes reasoned argument and progress, not faux erudition. Arrivisto (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what you're talking about. All I'm saying is I don't want to take the time to enumerate what all the sources say on this if doing so would be beside the point. As far as I'm concerned, all that matters here is whether the sources agree on this, or whether the sources tell us there is disagreement over whether countersteering is necessary. Here's some online examples:
  • Hurt Report, p. 417: "Motorcycle riders in these accidents showed significant collision avoidance problems. Most riders would overbrake and skid the rear wheel, and underbrake the front wheel greatly reducing collision avoidance deceleration. The ability to countersteer and swerve was essentially absent." [20] This is probably the seminal statement on countersteering, which led to the push to train riders in the US.
  • "If you don't know what makes a motorcycle lean, you'll never be able to swerve in a hurry." [21]
  • "You need to understand countersteering before you think about starting up a motorcycle. ...understanding countersteering will save your life."[22]
Again, the sources agree that there are too many riders who don't understand countersteering, but they make clear that such riders are running on borrowed time. I can give you much more from offline sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I would agree completely with Dennis on this and point further to Keith Code's No B.S. machine[23] as a demonstration of exactly why there is no such thing as steering without countersteering. — Brianhe (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't disagree with either of you. But it's worth noting that while in the UK motorcycling training is now so rigorous that the number of learner riders is dropping significantly, some years ago training didn't exist and countersteering wasn't mentioned. Speaking anecdotally, I passed my bike test with an Isle of Man provisional licence, riding a 650cc BSA A10 (there was no capacity restriction for learners then). I hadn't had a single lesson, nor any preparation beyond watching the TT and reading the Highway Code. Some years later I started scrambling (moto-X) on an AJS Stormer, and only then were the scales removed from my eyes! Arrivisto (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Every safety expert, motorcycle training course, and governemnt agency since then, and mostly likely before, going back to the Wright Brothers - not quite that far back. During the 1960's, it seems that California Highway Patrol was reluctant to teach countersteering to it's motorcycle officers. In addition, in the written motorcycle exams at that time, one of the multiple choice questions was what happens to a motorcycle in a corner if the rider applies the brakes?. The correct answer was that the motorcycle straigtens up, as opposed to the radius of the turn decreases, which was one of the other choices. Apparently that exam assumed that the rider wouldn't know that countersteering could be used to avoid straightening up and maintain the lean angle while applying the brakes, which would have resulted in decreasing the radius of the turn. Rcgldr (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
    • That's excellent. Can you give the specifics on the source for this?

      It verifies that from the Wright Brothers[24][25] until the 1981 Hurt Report, there has been a tug-of-war over countersteering between those who knew bikes and those who only thought they knew them. Since 1981, physics has won. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

  • As a global site, it's a concern that the word every in "Every safety expert, motorcycle training course, and governemnt agency", pertains only to the USA and Canada. The term Essential is not positive and not wholly true. The technique is highly recommended, but the word "essential" is not correct and may lead new riders to be disproportionately concerned with their own abilities which many training experts agree is a distraction from building safe skills and techniques. CarbonPepper (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The physics are the same globally. Please stop this if you don't have sources to cite. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Forgive me, "please stop this". Have I breached etiquette on contributing? I wasn't aware I needed your permission. Thank you for you message. As you own the page and the content, you are best placed to advise. Rather than citation, the evidence is in a lack of citation, how do I record this in my contributions please? The essential claim is borne of opinion and conjecture, none of the existing citations on the page state that it is essential. I've watched this page for years, have contributed via IP address edit and seen it drift in waves as different contributors get involved. It is not optimal, and blurs the concepts of Counter Steering (physics) and Deliberate Counter Steering (technique). CarbonPepper (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
If you have a source that says deliberate countersteering is not essential, or is a distraction from other more important riding techniques, then cite that source. If contrary opinions from experts exist, we should mention them. What we shouldn't do is fill article talk pages with endless bickering over the opinions of editors. The opinions of quality sources are what we need for articles. I think all those years of watching this page would have been better spent looking for sources to cite. You'll find that if you come prepared with sources you'll be taken much more seriously. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

technique makes it sound like something optional[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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?[edit]

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). [1] I found an English PDF also. [2] I didn't know about the translation until now, maybe it's better to use this one?
  1. ^ http://www.mc24.no/article.php?articleID=2716&categoryID=6
  2. ^ http://nmcu.org/files/Full%20Control_2013.pdf
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. [1]
  1. ^ http://www.fema-online.eu/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=62&cntnt01returnid=15
Atlesn (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

apply automatic countersteer to a free leaning vehicle[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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.wikipedia.org/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)

Include automatic countersteering in lead[edit]

I thought about the vehicles which relieves the driver from countersteering, and maybe there can be a sentence about this in the lead. We have kindof defined countersteering as being performed by the rider, which certainly is correct in most cases, but apparently not always.

I'm not sure if this is notable to have in the lead, but it is kindof short anyway. This goes for more three/four-wheelers only AFAIK, haven't seen any sources with two-wheelers doing this (do we have source for four-wheelers?).

Some multi-track vehicles use different approaches to countersteer implicitly to initiate a lean, and in these the driver just steers in the same direction as the turn.

Atlesn (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Atlesn. You are fast approaching my original point. There are two ways of looking at countersteer. You can focus on what the rider does or you can focus on what the vehicle does.In some vehicles where there is a direct relationship between driver input and front wheel/s steer angle both the driver and the vehicle do the same thing. In other situations this direct link does not exist and the rider does not directly apply the countersteer. In fact, this occurs on a conventional STV when the rider controls the vehicle " hands free",and there is a section in the Countersteer Article devoted to how this happens. In the further more recent examples the designers[ having observed the problems pointed out in the HURT report],choose to make the countersteer automatic and solely a vehicle condition while removing the need for the rider to apply the countersteer. But whatever or however... it is " countersteer" That's why the term "Automatic Countersteer" was coined [ not by me by the way], although I do use it extensively.
It is important to define "Automatic countersteer" as distinct from " manual countersteer". All forms of proper tilting vehicles are related right back to the pushbike. No designer will get anywhere without an in depth and intimate understanding of a pushbike and like the Wright brother observed, "there is a lack of understanding" We can now nail it down for them. PhillipCambering (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I would not include this detail in the lede, and I have yet to see a reliable source for distinguishing "automatic countersteer" from " manual countersteer". -AndrewDressel (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Phillip Back I had not noted the edits and I think its great progress. I have further edited the article in a way that makes some points clearer. I can provide scientific papers with regard the countersteer applied to the Carver which was an " option" originally but became standard fitment in production [ I will track it down and hopefully someone else can do the inserting] With regard the use of links to patents[ that I have not done ...yet,] let me say this. Normal countersteer was never patentable simply because it was a natural control phenomenon. However automatic countersteer was/is a patentable concept. My original application was the first example of Automatic Countersteer entered into "prior art". The CARVER system was the second example entered into "prior art". Now, because "wikepedia countersteering" concerns a technical field of significant importance I strongly suggest that patents are linked as defined by the Wikepedia Guidelines. To deny the use of the patents system as a valid source of technical information of great benefit to mankind is not acceptable. As I have said here, I am also editing the section on Patents and how they should be used because it was clearly biased. But I have no intention to expand the way patents can be used, but possibly this should be examined in the other place. Cheers PCambering (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Patents as sources have been discussed before; see WP:PATENTS for a summary. You can cite a patent for certain kinds of facts, but they are, in many ways primary sources. If the only source for a fact is a patent, I'd give it very brief mention in the body, not the lead. If you want to give it greater attention than that, you've got to cite an independent, secondary source. If the source can't be found today, then let it go. In a half a year or a year something will turn up and then this article can give it greater attention.

While we wait, mankind will, somehow, carry on. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Really? ok, I will go on holidays and hope for the best. PCambering (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
With regard to Andrews complaint that the term "Automatic Countersteer" has not been used in technical Journals see the following extract: I quote:
University of Bath
Ph.D., Active Control of Narrow Tilting Vehicle Dynamics
2010 – 2014
Developing and implementing an active roll stability control system for a prototype three-wheeled narrow tilting vehicle using an active steering system to generate automatic countersteering actions. The project led to a 40% reduction in load transfer, and the elimination of inside wheel lift-off, during a severe lane change manoeuvre.
So, indeed there is no reason to question the use of the term although I don't accept that the term was questionable as it uses normal language to describe something. The question of including a mention of Automatic Countersteer in the lead is now open for discussion.Cambering (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Phillip back with clarification. The quote above is from Robertson who was the lead author of the Bath University paper. He uses the term " automatic countersteer" to refer to his work, but in his technical document this term was not used. This is a good example of my previous points where often a layman's description is preferred in general conversation because the technical work is loaded with complexity. Nevertheless the term is logical and its use in the Wikipedia is the preferred expression. I believe this is merely a matter of " common sense" being applied to the Wikipedia editing process.Cambering (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
A link to the paper would be handy. Where was it published? -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Phillip here, [1] This is James Robertson's LinkedIn page where he refers to his published documents and it is here he uses the quote I referred to above re " automatic countersteer". The most recent publication[2014] costs $36.Cambering (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
The two papers he lists that have been published do not mention the phrase "automatic countersteer" in their abstracts. Instead, he mentions the phrase in his description of his PhD dissertation, which might be a reliable source, if we had more details, but to which he does not provide a link. Thus, the link we have so far is merely to a self-published description of the work and not to a reliable source for distinguishing "automatic countersteer" from "manual countersteer". -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Phillip here see:

DVC – The banking technology driving the CARVER vehicle class pdf, 2.4 MB – presentation at the 7th International Symposium on Advanced Vehicle Control, AVEC 2004, Arnhem (The Netherlands), August 2004

Contained in the document is the following description: 4.2 Improved STC The disadvantages of the standard STC can be best overcome by taking the balancing responsibility away from the driver and letting an automatic system take care of the front wheel steering to control the vehicle balancing. This has the following benefits: First it allows disconnecting the driver steering input from the front wheel, which makes it possible to present the driver with a ‘simple steer’ interface: To make a turn to the right, he simply has to steer to the right. The improved STC system will now take care of the initial steering input to the left which is required to tilt the vehicle body to the right in order to make a balanced motorcycle corner. Secondly, this ‘simple steer’ approach also removes the discontinuity when switching from ‘low speed lock’ to ‘balanced driving’ as mentioned in paragraph 3.2 STC.

Cambering (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Phillip back with further comments The " Automatic system" is disclosed to "take care of the initial steering input to the left" when making a turn to the right. The "initial steering input" is already agreed here by editors[ in the Wikipedia article] to mean "countersteer" and so this description is of Automatic Countersteer by definition. The fact that the presenter does not use the specific term "countersteer" is not relevant because it is obvious. [1]

Cambering (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

This is OT, but please try to format your posts a bit, all your posts up to now have had to be edited by me and others afterwards. Look at other posts to see how it's done and/or read here: Help:Wiki markup
Atlesn (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
looking at the lead it says "The rider's action of countersteering is sometimes referred to as giving a steering command"I propose this be removed because the action of countersteering is actually giving a leaning command.Other proposed changes include"Countersteering is used by single-track vehicle operators such as cyclists and motorcyclists, to initiate a turn toward a given direction by momentarily steering the handlebars[ and so the front wheel],counter to the desired direction ("steer left to turn right").Countersteer is also used in multi-track leaning vehicles. Countersteer automatically applied,is used in some multi track leaning vehicles where the operators use a simple steer control style [ "steer left to turn left"][ insert link]To negotiate a turn successfully, the combined center of mass of the rider and the vehicle must first be leaned in the direction of the turn, and the front wheel/s steering briefly in the opposite direction causes that lean.[1] Cambering (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The sources say steering command, can't just change it without another source. Atlesn (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)