it worked for me. one day it was decided I was too old to keep using training wheels (when I was 4 or 5, can't remember), and they got taken off. I remember it being easy.
I learned how to ride a bike when a young kid sticking one leg inside the triangle frame of the large adult bike. Kind of dangerous now looking back but I still remember the liberating feeling of more mobility.
Having had the pleasure in training three kids on how to ride a bike, forget training wheels, or taking the pedals off!
find a reasonable long grass hill - not to too steep, but steep enough to allow a kid to go down the hill riding the bike with out pedalling.
and then goto the top of the hill and let them go down the hill on the bike. Once they master the balancing part of going down, they seem to pick up the art of turning the pedals at the end of the hill to keep going (if not, explain what to do)
advantages: doesn't hurt when they fall off, gets them used to rough terrain. it becomes fun once they start to master the balancing bit
They have to understand to keep pedaling and not to stop while you push them to get up to speed where it requires a lot less balance. The hill method you mention offers the same affect. It's amazing that it only takes a try or two and they are set.
This is how I taught myself to ride a bike when I was a kid.
I eventually figured out (through trial and error) the actual technique to maintaining balance: if you feel yourself falling to the left, turn the handlebars slightly to the left, and if you feel yourself falling to the right, turn the handlebars slightly to the right.
I suppose kids these days learn this intuitively with balance bikes but it was a real lightbulb moment for me and I suspect I would have learned much more quickly if someone had explained it that way.
My favorite metohod on how to learn kids to ride a bike is the "wibble-wobble method"[1] by Douglas Engelbart, where you instruct the kid to keep alternating between turning gently left and right on order to get the balance (as you would to if you wanted to balance stationery) and the feedback mechanism between tilting, steering and then un-tilting established. It is incredible how quickly most "get" the relationship.
Started all 3 of my kids on a balance bike at age 2. All my kids could ride a regular bike by the time they were 3. It occurred to me that they will never remember not knowing how to ride a bike. Also it’s amazing to me how quickly they all learned. Conversely, I couldn’t ride a bike without training wheels until I was maybe 7 or 8.
OT, the longer I work in technology the more amazed I am at the capability of biological systems.
Biological systems can be quite capable, but they can also be remarkably badly 'designed'. They are stuck in many local optima.
There's a nerve that goes up and down your neck (and the much longer neck of the giraffe), just because evolution hasn't found a way to remove its loop around your collarbone. Or: the nerves and blood vessels in your eyeball are in _front_ of the light sensors and obscure our vision. Doesn't make any sense, but there doesn't seem to be a gradual [0] way to fix that.
Cycling, along with swimming, are the two activities I give that exemplifies how poor people are at explaining what they are doing. For cycling, most people will adamantly claim that to turn left, you first turn the handle bars to the left. When they show me on a bike, they are surprised that they never noticed that they turn the handlebars right first. The funny part is, even people who know this and know it is called "countersteering" proceed to explain it in such a way that is actually less insightful than just telling someone to turn left. Almost no one mentions that the goal of a turn is to get the correct lean to a bike.
With swimming, I did 7 years of lessons and never enjoyed swimming. My legs always got fatigued in a couple of minutes and could not go as fast as others. It did not matter how many good swimmers or instructors I told this to. It was not until a fellow engineer at university told me that your arms are what propel you forward and your legs simply keep you afloat. Such a simple statement did more than all those years of lessons.
It is amusing to think about that, even with the best intentions, sometimes being taught something is the worst thing that can happen for you to actually learn it.
Telling someone how to steer a bike is useless and plain unnecessary. You teach them to balance and they will naturally counter-steer. There is no theory class.
Learning how to ride a unicycle is somewhat similar, though the opposite:
Here hard part is the back-front balancing, because it is intimately mixed up with pedaling for propulsion. If you already know how to ride a bi-cycle, then the left-right balancing is so easy, it's essentially free.
The balance bikes with no pedals are really good for kids. They get it without any instruction. It's amazing seeing 2-year-olds zoom around effortlessly, and stop by just banging into the wall.
But the act of pedalling seems to be more difficult for some. I tried teaching my 2-year-old niece how to pedal on her older sister's bike. She simply could not comprehend it, even though she's excellent on the balance bike. Even after watching others do it and slowly explaining it to her, it was like she was incapable of moving her legs that way. She'll pick it up in time, but she always wants to ride the "big kid" bikes and the pedals get in the way.
Start with balance bike, once they got that put them on a small bike with training wheels (force them to not focus on balance but pedaling), once they’re pedaling well, put them back on the balance bike for like a week and then take the training wheels off and try that.
3 of my kids got pedaling no problem, one got balancing super quick, but has a hard time pedaling still.
Make sure your kid’s first pedal bike is relatively small and light weight. My 4.5-year-old was a balance-bike pro after 2 years’ practice, so we thought he’d be fine on a pedal bike. We got him one that was on the large side (but nominally fit him) hoping he would grow into it and keep riding it for a few years. But it was awkward and heavy and he didn’t want to try enough to really get going.
After 6 months of no progress, the first pedal bike was stolen, and we bought him a much smaller lighter one. He was riding happily within the afternoon.
This seems true with a bike but adults learning to drive motorcycles are actively taught the theory of how to countersteer. Even knowing how to ride a bicycle, motorcycle learners can make mistakes at low speeds or when swerving with a heavier vehicle. One reason you dont actually have to know how to countersteer a bicycle is that it can also be steered by weight shift which isn’t true for motorcycles in general.
I was kind of with you, but then I remembered that as a kid I was fairly skilled at riding the bike without hands on handlebars, including gentle but initiated and controlled turns. I agree that lean is key but experimentally, hands on handlebar is not a prerequisite.
My old cycle commute into Oxford took me along the riverside path following the River Thames. There are no particularly sharp turns, but it does meander, and you'd get pretty wet if you couldn't steer.
I once managed to cycle an entire 2-mile section along that path without touching the handlebars, so it definitely seems like it's possible to initiate steers just by shifting your body weight.
You cannot make an overall lean. You can't just shift the center of mass.
What happens is that you angle your upper body relative to the bike. If your upper body leans left, the bike leans right. If a bike running hands free leans, the front wheel turns in the direction of the lean. There you automatically have the counter steering when biking hands free.
And this is really hard on a heavy motorbike. The bike will not angle much.
I was responding to notion that you must make physical input to handlebars via hands, and that is empirically untrue. All other discussion on how to initiate turn in principle remains valid.
I agree. I was responding to notion that you need to touch handlebars with your hands to turn as opposed to manipulate lean / angle through other means. I fully agree counter steering is key.
A while back I got my motorcycle endorsement on my driver's license which required a class. The instructor taught us "to go left, push left", meaning push on the left handlebar (another way of saying "turn right", I guess). This idea was completely foreign to me but he insisted we all do it.
What I discovered is that I most certainly do NOT turn right to go left. While I could do what he was suggesting (pushing on the left handlebar) and it would achieve the desired effect of transitioning me from a straight line to a right turn, it is not how I ride a bike (bicycle or motorcycle). I spent a long time experimenting with this, and from what I can tell, my natural way of turning is to shift my center of gravity by leaning my upper body. I truly, honestly do not think that I turn right first in order to go left (normally). I can see why people say this works, but I'm convinced this is not how I ride a bike.
I think the "turn right to go left" is a way of using the bike to force you to lean. As best I can tell, I just skip that and do the leaning myself.
Be careful. I used to think the same thing. Until I got onto a bigger bike at higher speeds. My lean didn't cut it, not with that much weight at those speeds. I had some sketchy moments until I did what all the instructors said and pushed the dang handlebar.
You should take a look at the No BS Bike [0, 1]. It's a motorcycle with a second set of handlebars fixed to the frame. They don't connect to the forks; they don't rotate.
Riders are challenged to hold on to these bars and lean the bike as they're underway. At speeds faster than 20mph or so, leaning has a negligible effect on the bike's lean and direction. You can do some very limited steering this way, but the amount of effort you put into it for the meager return quickly convinces riders that handlebar input it the way to control bike direction.
When you were shifting your weight, were your arms attached to the handlebars? It's impossible to isolate your shifting of body weight from the related pushing or pulling on the bars if you're stabilizing your upper body through the handlebars.
If shifting your center of gravity was all that was needed, how are you supposed to turn a motorcycle a low speed without tipping the bike over when you're leaning into the turn?
You have to keep in mind how counter steering works. Take a pencil and try to balance it upright in your hand for a split second, then jerk your hand to the right. The tip of the pencil falls to the left, correct? Like wise, if you're trying to keep it upright, you move your hand into the direction the tip of the pencil is falling towards to get the bottom underneath the tip.
That's what basically happens when you counter steer; the front tire turning is kicking the bike out from underneath yourself as it steers to the right, and it forces the bike to lean left. It's the leaning of the bike's tires that causes the actual turn to the left.
The beauty of it the way the bike's frame and front wheel design, the front wheel naturally will want to turn back into the direction of where it's leaning in an attempt to stabilize itself. You preventing controlling that behavior, along with brake and throttle, is how a turn is maintained and how you exit a turn.
That's not to say that COG doesn't affect the turn rate / radius, it absolutely does. It's also possible to turn the bike by just shifting the COG. But counter steering at most road speeds has a much higher maximum turn rate with better control over getting the bike pointed where you want to go and typically with less physical effort to initiate, maintain, and terminate the turn. And why I urge you to try again with counter steering (not necessarily push turning, you can pull to achieve the same effect). It's something easy to practice every time you make a turn and can very easily be the difference between swerve and a crash.
I think they might of skipped a level and thus caused confusion. You control a bike/motorcycle by adjusting its bank angle. To turn towards the left you bank towards the left. To bank towards the left you push on the left handlebar. Once you are banking you need to apply pressure to the right handlebar to prevent over banking. After that you apply pressure as required on both the right and left handlebars as required to maintain the desired bank angle. There is no direct mapping between the direction of turn and the side of the handlebar you apply pressure to.
If you go to the trouble to tell someone how to start a turn you should then go on and tell them how to maintain that turn.
Bank angle and center of mass are related. You countersteer to shift the center of mass towards the inside of the turn, and then steer in the direction of the turn to maintain a balanced equilibrium at (more or less) constant speed in the turn.
On a motorcycle, you can add throttle to bring the bank angle back to vertical. On a bicycle, you can steer deeper into the turn to perturb your center of mass back towards the vertical.
You're a LOT more likely to notice this on a mountain bike than a road bike. If you start throwing a road bike around like you do a mountain bike in a tight section among trees, you're likely to end up using your helmet.
What you describe is not impossible, but it is very very hard. If you can balance yourself on a completely stationary bicycle (brakes fully applied), then you may be able to do what you describe, but for most people it is more probable that you actually do a tiny imperceptible amount of counter steer when you lean. Most people ride by counter steer without noticing because it is a tiny movement.
I found out when I was young too. I guess it's just curiosity about how things really work. And then of course attention to the fine details. Really feeling what goes on.
I'm generally curious how things I interact with work I guess, and it's quite obvious that riding a bike relies on balance, and this is just really balance.
I was a fairly serious baseball player as a kid, and later got into golf, and what you describe is pervasive in those activities too. Coaches for generations have repeated things like "keep your elbow up" or "push off the rubber" that (accomplished) players don't actually do, and it's quite apparent if you watch any slow-motion video.
I also struggled with swimming until I was in college and realized that floating is more about filling my lungs with air than anything people told me to do with my arms and legs. My epiphany was that people could float on their backs without moving their arms and legs at all. Now my kids are in a great swimming lesson program, and they start everything with taking a big breath and puffing out their cheeks. I wish someone had just told me that as a kid.
"The primary reason that certain people cannot float in water is an abnormally dense body composition. A higher bone density combined with a higher muscle mass percentage and a low body fat percentage will result in a natural inclination toward sinking rather than floating."
Can confirm: if I fill my lungs with air and try to float on my back, I'll have my feet hanging downwards and just about only my lips sticking out of the water. Swimming is a lot like work.
Just to confirm this being an actual thing some more: If I fill my lungs and lie on my back I float about a foot beneath the surface of the water. Keeping my head above water involves at the very least some semi-vigorous paddling.
counterintuitively in basketball, shooting is mainly about pushing the ball up in the air (against gravity) rather than forward. that means the legs are the primary actuator used in shooting, rather than the arms, as most beginners assume. the arms mainly provide the finer motor control needed to guide the ball through the hoop.
this misperception sometimes comes from watching nba players (like lebron) who are so strong they can shoot primarily from their arms, but that's not most people. steph curry's absurd range, for instance, comes mainly from his legs (efficiently utilized by a tight shooting form).
I have similar experiences from salsa lesson. I did years and years of classes, but did one private lesson (and a few years later another) with an exceptionally good teacher and got more enough actionable insights to fuel my improvement for at least a year.
Even experienced dancers who teach will often say what they think they're doing rather than what they're actually doing, which I always find frustrating. The approaches that work best for me are:
1. Describe how it feels to do what I need to do
2. Describe at the biomechanical the principles of what I need to do, which muscles to engage, how my weight should be distributed etc.
I've been riding an ebike for a while and I noticed I almost solely turn by leaning. If I need more turn after leaning I'll turn the bars but I paid attention to this recently and I don't turn opposite first at that point. Maybe I'm doing it wrong.
It sounds intuitively right. Source: not a bicycle, but I ride a motorcycle, an you are describing it the exact same way it is done on motorcycles as well at any speeds above “parking lot maneuvering” speeds.
It's possible to turn without counter steering, especially on a light weight ebike. But counter steering can achieve a higher rate of turn for less physical effort.
It's also possible that you are counter steering intuitively without realizing it. It takes very little to initiate a turn; this rider demonstrates it quite well how little it takes and specifically talks about why someone might think they're turning without counter steering.
That said this is more for motorcycles; the tires are much wider and thus motorcycles must lean over more to achieve the same rate of turn that an bicycle with narrower tires achieves.
"Keep the weight on the downhill ski" is the skiing equivalent of this. I never got it until an instructor taught me to skate on skis to travel over flat ground. I then finally understood where my weight should be when I turned (leaning out and down)
There's a general principle that's at work here for certain concepts: it's often a good idea to teach children technology skills in terms of the technology's historical development.
Riding a bicycle is certainly one; the earliest velocipedes had no pedals at all, and are essentially the "balance bikes" mentioned here.
Mathematics and computer science is another one -- no matter how elegant it can feel to construct a world from teaching in first principles first, the historical pedagogy is much more intuitive and effective, IMO.
What you suggest works, but it's also somewhat of a false dilemma.
For eg math you don't have to pick between historical development or axiomatic approaches, you can make up a new order of presentation from scratch.
Take category theory. The historical approach requires lots of advanced maths [0], and the purely axiomatic approach is basically way to abstract for anyone to get any intuition of why this is useful.
By comparison, it's relatively easy to teach someone some basic programming, and then go more abstract from there.
I taught a woman to ride a bike once. I was an adult, she was an adult. She mentioned she wanted to learn so I took her to a park and taught her. It didn't take very long. When she finally was able to start peddling around in a circle without help she was laughing so much she looked hysterical. People in the park were staring. I'll remember that fondly for a long time.
Bicycles are one of the greatest devices ever invented. A relatively simple machine that enables humans to efficiently propel themselves much further and faster than they’d otherwise be able to. Everyone deserves to ride one!
I taught my kid how to ride using training wheels 4 years ago. She rode 4 times in 4 weeks using 2 training wheels. 1 hour on 1 wheel the next week. The next weekend within 20 minutes of no wheel she was fine and cycled perfectly since. Truth be told I didn’t teach her any more than encourage her.
I was sceptical of the balance bike method. She didn’t need it. I remain highly skeptical that it offers any advantage whatsoever.
Away from kids, when I watch adult riders, a high proportion (30%+) have the seat far too low, maybe 3-5 inches too low. If you can flat foot sit, add 2 inches.
How old was your kid? My daughter was riding a normal bike without training wheels at 3 years 11 months thanks to learning on a balance bike. She's the youngest and had the benefit of watching her older siblings so YMMV.
Reading this thread you'll see a lot of the balance bike proponents saying the same thing: that their kids were riding normal bikes by age 3.
I can’t actually recall, history blurs. Somewhere 3.5-4.5.
I did try her on a balance bike. She wasn’t interested and just ran everywhere. Within 2-3 months of hopping on a pedal bike she had no training wheels.
I don’t doubt your or other commenters experience at all. I am just adding my data point. It feels like ‘proponents’ claim some proven superior method. I wonder if there are any blind studies that actually prove the notion? How large is the effect?
> Away from kids, when I watch adult riders, a high proportion (30%+) have the seat far too low, maybe 3-5 inches too low. If you can flat foot sit, add 2 inches.
That's still way too low. If you want good bio-mechanics, try putting your seat so high that you can comfortably reach the pedal with the balls of your feet.
Though if you want to get a good leg workout, having your seat way too low might be beneficial?
My own experience is the opposite. My son learned to use a balance bike since 2 years old, a couple of weeks before his 3rd birthday we got a regular bike, on the same night we ran alongside him riding his bike grabbing his jacket in case he fell. He started riding the same night.
This is obviously not a competition, but the faster your kid learns the more fun they will have. If you are ok with training wheels that's fine too.
Training wheels were known to be garbage in the 80s, likely earlier. Nothing beats learning on a bike with pedals, once you learn to balance you can then start propelling yourself.
No doubt a balance bike is an effective way to teach someone how to ride, but it also sounds like a way for bike companies to make more money. I taught my kids on normal bikes but with the seat lowered so that it was easy for their feet to reach the ground.
You can get cheap balance bikes for a couple dozen bucks. But, of course, there's no upper limit.
When I grew up in Germany in the late 1980s, early 1990s, scooters were more common than balance bikes for young kids. They also taught some balance, I guess.
But was the old way really that ineffective? I remember driving to a big empty parking space on a Sunday with my father, he removed the training wheels, and after around 30 minutes, I got it. Learning to ride a bike isn't complicated, what makes it look so hard is that it is a sort-of binary skill. You can either hold your balance, our you can't, and so it will look completely impossible until you suddenly can do it.
Tom Scott learned to ride a bike in this 30ies, it didn't take long [0].
Interestingly, "training wheels" aren't called "training" wheels in Germany, but "supporting wheels" (Stützräder), and when I was a kid, nobody used them to "train" their children to ride a bike. They were used to transform the bike into another kind of vehicle the kid could use until it was old enough to learn to ride a bike.
With balance bikes, the kids seem to learn so quickly that they're too young to have any memory (like you do) of learning to ride. I remember almost nothing from age 3, but that's when my second daughter made the transition from her balance bike to her big sister's bike, with zero instruction or encouragement from me.
My oldest daughter was more cautious and insisted on training wheels, which she saw other kids using, depsite already mastering the balance bike, so she didn't fully learn until age 4.
Anecdotally, I notice a real difference in my neighborhood between the families trying each approach, with the balance bike kids "getting it" significantly earlier.
I think besides learning how to balance and steer a bike, kids have to learn propelling the bike using pedals. A bike is different from most other pedalled vehicles that kids usually use (with the exception of pedal karts) due to the gear ratio and the fact that stopping the pedals doesn't stop the bike. This requires learning to use the brakes as well.
And furthermore, the two skills depend on each other. If you can't keep your balance, keeping your feet in the pedals means falling down and not getting back up right away (as you also have to learn how to quickly get your feet off the pedals and onto the ground). If you can't pedal, you can't get a fast enough speed to make it easier to keep your balance. Combine that with the fear people might have of pedaling at a higher speed and falling, it's understandable why some people never learn how to ride a bike
I don't think anyone read this but anyway: After reading this, I resumed my
4yo daughter's stalled bike practice. This time we focused on pedaling, as advised in a thread. And she got able to ride after less than an hour!
So thanks HN. You changed my daughter's like ... maybe in a small way? but still.
79 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 148 ms ] threadfind a reasonable long grass hill - not to too steep, but steep enough to allow a kid to go down the hill riding the bike with out pedalling.
and then goto the top of the hill and let them go down the hill on the bike. Once they master the balancing part of going down, they seem to pick up the art of turning the pedals at the end of the hill to keep going (if not, explain what to do)
advantages: doesn't hurt when they fall off, gets them used to rough terrain. it becomes fun once they start to master the balancing bit
I eventually figured out (through trial and error) the actual technique to maintaining balance: if you feel yourself falling to the left, turn the handlebars slightly to the left, and if you feel yourself falling to the right, turn the handlebars slightly to the right.
I suppose kids these days learn this intuitively with balance bikes but it was a real lightbulb moment for me and I suspect I would have learned much more quickly if someone had explained it that way.
[1]: https://collectiveiq.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/how-doug-engel...
OT, the longer I work in technology the more amazed I am at the capability of biological systems.
There's a nerve that goes up and down your neck (and the much longer neck of the giraffe), just because evolution hasn't found a way to remove its loop around your collarbone. Or: the nerves and blood vessels in your eyeball are in _front_ of the light sensors and obscure our vision. Doesn't make any sense, but there doesn't seem to be a gradual [0] way to fix that.
[0] Gradual in 'gene' space, that is.
First - you throw out your main idea.
Then - you stop, put a period, and hit publish.
If only all web content was like this post!
With swimming, I did 7 years of lessons and never enjoyed swimming. My legs always got fatigued in a couple of minutes and could not go as fast as others. It did not matter how many good swimmers or instructors I told this to. It was not until a fellow engineer at university told me that your arms are what propel you forward and your legs simply keep you afloat. Such a simple statement did more than all those years of lessons.
It is amusing to think about that, even with the best intentions, sometimes being taught something is the worst thing that can happen for you to actually learn it.
It was terrible, it took me forever to learn how to ride because I was focused on turning and pedaling.
My kids on their balance bikes just learned how to propel themselves forward by pushing off then balancing as long as they could.
Learning the easy part of propel yourself forward with pedals was easy then.
Here hard part is the back-front balancing, because it is intimately mixed up with pedaling for propulsion. If you already know how to ride a bi-cycle, then the left-right balancing is so easy, it's essentially free.
But the act of pedalling seems to be more difficult for some. I tried teaching my 2-year-old niece how to pedal on her older sister's bike. She simply could not comprehend it, even though she's excellent on the balance bike. Even after watching others do it and slowly explaining it to her, it was like she was incapable of moving her legs that way. She'll pick it up in time, but she always wants to ride the "big kid" bikes and the pedals get in the way.
Start with balance bike, once they got that put them on a small bike with training wheels (force them to not focus on balance but pedaling), once they’re pedaling well, put them back on the balance bike for like a week and then take the training wheels off and try that.
3 of my kids got pedaling no problem, one got balancing super quick, but has a hard time pedaling still.
Make sure your kid’s first pedal bike is relatively small and light weight. My 4.5-year-old was a balance-bike pro after 2 years’ practice, so we thought he’d be fine on a pedal bike. We got him one that was on the large side (but nominally fit him) hoping he would grow into it and keep riding it for a few years. But it was awkward and heavy and he didn’t want to try enough to really get going.
After 6 months of no progress, the first pedal bike was stolen, and we bought him a much smaller lighter one. He was riding happily within the afternoon.
I once managed to cycle an entire 2-mile section along that path without touching the handlebars, so it definitely seems like it's possible to initiate steers just by shifting your body weight.
I was responding to notion that you must make physical input to handlebars via hands, and that is empirically untrue. All other discussion on how to initiate turn in principle remains valid.
https://youtu.be/9cNmUNHSBac
What I discovered is that I most certainly do NOT turn right to go left. While I could do what he was suggesting (pushing on the left handlebar) and it would achieve the desired effect of transitioning me from a straight line to a right turn, it is not how I ride a bike (bicycle or motorcycle). I spent a long time experimenting with this, and from what I can tell, my natural way of turning is to shift my center of gravity by leaning my upper body. I truly, honestly do not think that I turn right first in order to go left (normally). I can see why people say this works, but I'm convinced this is not how I ride a bike.
I think the "turn right to go left" is a way of using the bike to force you to lean. As best I can tell, I just skip that and do the leaning myself.
Riders are challenged to hold on to these bars and lean the bike as they're underway. At speeds faster than 20mph or so, leaning has a negligible effect on the bike's lean and direction. You can do some very limited steering this way, but the amount of effort you put into it for the meager return quickly convinces riders that handlebar input it the way to control bike direction.
When you were shifting your weight, were your arms attached to the handlebars? It's impossible to isolate your shifting of body weight from the related pushing or pulling on the bars if you're stabilizing your upper body through the handlebars.
[0] https://superbikeschool.com/about-us/machinery/no-b-s-machin...
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VqXBA-sGHA
This video demonstrates rather clearly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNRJNwXljUo&t=285s Guy's head is upright the whole time. This rider demonstrates it as well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUUY5xn2p2s
You have to keep in mind how counter steering works. Take a pencil and try to balance it upright in your hand for a split second, then jerk your hand to the right. The tip of the pencil falls to the left, correct? Like wise, if you're trying to keep it upright, you move your hand into the direction the tip of the pencil is falling towards to get the bottom underneath the tip.
That's what basically happens when you counter steer; the front tire turning is kicking the bike out from underneath yourself as it steers to the right, and it forces the bike to lean left. It's the leaning of the bike's tires that causes the actual turn to the left.
The beauty of it the way the bike's frame and front wheel design, the front wheel naturally will want to turn back into the direction of where it's leaning in an attempt to stabilize itself. You preventing controlling that behavior, along with brake and throttle, is how a turn is maintained and how you exit a turn.
That's not to say that COG doesn't affect the turn rate / radius, it absolutely does. It's also possible to turn the bike by just shifting the COG. But counter steering at most road speeds has a much higher maximum turn rate with better control over getting the bike pointed where you want to go and typically with less physical effort to initiate, maintain, and terminate the turn. And why I urge you to try again with counter steering (not necessarily push turning, you can pull to achieve the same effect). It's something easy to practice every time you make a turn and can very easily be the difference between swerve and a crash.
If you go to the trouble to tell someone how to start a turn you should then go on and tell them how to maintain that turn.
On a motorcycle, you can add throttle to bring the bank angle back to vertical. On a bicycle, you can steer deeper into the turn to perturb your center of mass back towards the vertical.
You're a LOT more likely to notice this on a mountain bike than a road bike. If you start throwing a road bike around like you do a mountain bike in a tight section among trees, you're likely to end up using your helmet.
This is challenge when trying to teach people how to ride a motorcycle. Counter-steering is counter-intuitive.
One of the better explanatory ways I've heard:
* put your hands on the handle bars
* stuck your index fingers out
* if you want to turn right, push/point your right index finger forward in the direction you want to travel†
* to go left, push/point your left finger forward
† Pushing the right handle bar causes the wheel to go left, travel on its 'edge', and cause the two-wheeled vehicle to tilt to the right.
I also struggled with swimming until I was in college and realized that floating is more about filling my lungs with air than anything people told me to do with my arms and legs. My epiphany was that people could float on their backs without moving their arms and legs at all. Now my kids are in a great swimming lesson program, and they start everything with taking a big breath and puffing out their cheeks. I wish someone had just told me that as a kid.
"The primary reason that certain people cannot float in water is an abnormally dense body composition. A higher bone density combined with a higher muscle mass percentage and a low body fat percentage will result in a natural inclination toward sinking rather than floating."
Yes, but filling your lungs would still make a difference.
this misperception sometimes comes from watching nba players (like lebron) who are so strong they can shoot primarily from their arms, but that's not most people. steph curry's absurd range, for instance, comes mainly from his legs (efficiently utilized by a tight shooting form).
[0] https://youtu.be/9cNmUNHSBac
Even experienced dancers who teach will often say what they think they're doing rather than what they're actually doing, which I always find frustrating. The approaches that work best for me are:
1. Describe how it feels to do what I need to do
2. Describe at the biomechanical the principles of what I need to do, which muscles to engage, how my weight should be distributed etc.
It's also possible that you are counter steering intuitively without realizing it. It takes very little to initiate a turn; this rider demonstrates it quite well how little it takes and specifically talks about why someone might think they're turning without counter steering.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljywO-B_yew&t=198s
That said this is more for motorcycles; the tires are much wider and thus motorcycles must lean over more to achieve the same rate of turn that an bicycle with narrower tires achieves.
Riding a bicycle is certainly one; the earliest velocipedes had no pedals at all, and are essentially the "balance bikes" mentioned here.
Mathematics and computer science is another one -- no matter how elegant it can feel to construct a world from teaching in first principles first, the historical pedagogy is much more intuitive and effective, IMO.
For eg math you don't have to pick between historical development or axiomatic approaches, you can make up a new order of presentation from scratch.
Take category theory. The historical approach requires lots of advanced maths [0], and the purely axiomatic approach is basically way to abstract for anyone to get any intuition of why this is useful.
By comparison, it's relatively easy to teach someone some basic programming, and then go more abstract from there.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_category_theory_an...
Bicycles are one of the greatest devices ever invented. A relatively simple machine that enables humans to efficiently propel themselves much further and faster than they’d otherwise be able to. Everyone deserves to ride one!
I was sceptical of the balance bike method. She didn’t need it. I remain highly skeptical that it offers any advantage whatsoever.
Away from kids, when I watch adult riders, a high proportion (30%+) have the seat far too low, maybe 3-5 inches too low. If you can flat foot sit, add 2 inches.
Reading this thread you'll see a lot of the balance bike proponents saying the same thing: that their kids were riding normal bikes by age 3.
I did try her on a balance bike. She wasn’t interested and just ran everywhere. Within 2-3 months of hopping on a pedal bike she had no training wheels.
I don’t doubt your or other commenters experience at all. I am just adding my data point. It feels like ‘proponents’ claim some proven superior method. I wonder if there are any blind studies that actually prove the notion? How large is the effect?
That's still way too low. If you want good bio-mechanics, try putting your seat so high that you can comfortably reach the pedal with the balls of your feet.
Though if you want to get a good leg workout, having your seat way too low might be beneficial?
This is obviously not a competition, but the faster your kid learns the more fun they will have. If you are ok with training wheels that's fine too.
When I grew up in Germany in the late 1980s, early 1990s, scooters were more common than balance bikes for young kids. They also taught some balance, I guess.
Tom Scott learned to ride a bike in this 30ies, it didn't take long [0].
Interestingly, "training wheels" aren't called "training" wheels in Germany, but "supporting wheels" (Stützräder), and when I was a kid, nobody used them to "train" their children to ride a bike. They were used to transform the bike into another kind of vehicle the kid could use until it was old enough to learn to ride a bike.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7GKK3liv8M
My oldest daughter was more cautious and insisted on training wheels, which she saw other kids using, depsite already mastering the balance bike, so she didn't fully learn until age 4.
Anecdotally, I notice a real difference in my neighborhood between the families trying each approach, with the balance bike kids "getting it" significantly earlier.
Perhaps you (and other Germans) transition away from the training wheels with younger kids than is more common in the English speaking world?
So thanks HN. You changed my daughter's like ... maybe in a small way? but still.