Correoulis effect

I don't know if this will help, but the site does have an interesting little video describing the Coriolis effect:

http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/crls.rxml

My gut tells me that the corriolis effect is much to large scale to really effect the lean you make at a curve on a motorcycle.

In Physics when there is a torque i.e. a force acting at a distance from the pivot point there is an effect at right angles to the plane of the turning moment. Stick out your thumb, fore finger and the middle finger at right angles to each other. If you turn your hand around one finger in the clockwise direction, the two digits turning represent the turning moment and the lone digit is the direction of the coriolis effect force. If you are going forward there is a pull to the left as it is a right hand rule.

As the coriolis effect pulls you to the left it is easier to turn left.

I believe it is negligible at the speed of a motorcycle.

This is a very small effect that effects big vortices that exist for a long time (like storms) but have no significant effect on anything else that you experience in your day to day life.

The toilet/sink./bathtub thing is a myth. There are much more important factors on which way water flows down the drain, namely the shape of the sink and drain.

To answer your question: there is almost no effect that the coriolis effect has on a 200lb rider on a 500lb motorcycle. It is like asking how much carrying the weight an extra banana slows down a bicycle rider (a very small, insignificant effect).

This is sensational exageration of this effect is persistant myth that greatly annoys many Physics teachers.

Here is the Bad Coriolis page.

He's got a bad case of coriolis!

I expect It's the torque of the engine.

It was once said that the only things P-51 Mustang pilots knew how to do was "go fast and turn left."

Of course, the engine caused fast left turns; right turns took considerably longer.

very good point, I bet, Drewdad.

Airplanes also experience an effect called the "P Factor" which requires left rudder to compensate for during takeoff.

Do I have any motorcycle riders from down under on here?

The North American Mustang, Pursuit Model 51, was originally designed as a ground-support aircraft, a role for which it was superb. It was, however, orginally powered with an Allison engine, which provided ample power for low altitude, relatively slow flight. The engine provided a great deal of power with very little torque, and was designed to lift one of the best armored propeller-driven aircraft ever designed, as well as the huge fuel load necessary for sustained low altitude flight.

However, the air superiority which the allies enjoyed in Europe was such that another ground support aircraft was not needed. The Curtiss Pursuit 40 line, Kittyhawk, Tomahawk, etc.--was sufficiently sturdy to fill that role, and was relatively cheap (a late 1930's model, production costs continued to drop throughout the war). It had been "tested" in combat conditons thoroughly against the Japanese in China (Claire Chenault's famous "Flying Tigers" originally used the Bell Pursuit 39 Air Cobra, the production model first flight-tested in 1938). The Air Cobra had an Allison power plant generating 1200 horse power--it relied on a 37 mm nose canon firing through the propeller hub, two in-wing 50 cal.s and two "under-slung" wing-mounted 50 cal.s. The consistent top test speed was 385 mph (at 10000 feet, the standard for speed trials), with a 250 mph climb rate and a cruising range of 650 miles. It was not particularly sturdy, however, and could not match the handling of Japanese fighters by Mitsubishi and Nakagima. The Air Cobra was phased out early in the war.



The Bell Pursuit Model P39Q Air Cobra

The Curtiss Pursuit 40 line, which culminated with the P-40N Warhawk, used a similar Allison engine, which generated 1150 horse power, giving it a consistent top speed of 362 mph, and a climb rate of 235 mph. It relied upon six in-wing 50 cal.s, but it had much greater carrying capacity, which gave it a range of 830 miles, and also allowed it to carry up to 700 pounds of bombs "under-slung"--and also allowed it to climb to and cruise at 30000 feet. It's durability was its big secret--it could do power dives (most aircraft designed before 1940 not only could not do power dives, manufacturers recommended against it)--which meant that it could climb above the more nimble Mitsubishi and Nakagima aircraft, and then dive throught the Japanese formation, spraying 50 cal. fire (if you've ever seen a 50 cal. slug, you'll know what kind of havoc these could wreak; Canadians flying with the RAF consistently complained about the 30 cal. guns they used, and demanded 50 cal.s--it took the RAF years to come around to that point of view, however). Any Japanese pilot who was foolish enough to attempt to follow them into the dive would likely see his wings tear off as the final coherent image he had before his death. Japanese planes of the late 1930s were almost without peer for handling and speed, but they were horribly expensive by anyone's standards, and carried small fuel loads and no armor, not even for the cockpit and engine compartment. When the United States Navy deployed the Wildcat, they had a fighter which could almost, but not quite perform with the Mitsubishi, but which could survive. When the Corsair and the Hellcat were deployed, the Mitsubishi Zero's were doomed.

Chenault's "Flying Tigers" developed the technique of diving through Japanese bomber formations, and then outrunning the Zeros (with whom they could not dog-fight) at low altitude. The Curtiss aircraft were just that sturdy--the Japanese aircraft were not. The Curtiss Warhawks were deployed right across the globe, being used by the RAF and other Imperial Air forces, and by the Soviets. The simplicity of their design (shamelessly ripped off by Mikoyan and Guryevitch (MiG) for their earliest fighters, the MiG 1 and the MiG 2) and rugged construction made them ideal close support aircraft. They were phased out by the end of the war, but more than 14000 were manufactured. The most famous of Marine Corps aces in that war, Greg Boyington, flew the Kitthawk with the American volunteers in China before returning to the United States Marines after the outbreak of war between the United States and the Japanese Empire.



A modern restoration of the Curtiss Pursuit Model 40N Warhawk, painted in the manner of the "Flying Tigers."

Without a doubt, the sturdiest, the toughest fighter in American service in the war was the Republic Pursuit Model 47 Thunderbolt. Very heavy, and very heavily armored, they were powered by a Pratt and Whitney engine which developed 2300 horse power. They were designed for high-altitude escort duty, with a ceiling of over 40000 feet, and their range was good at 1100 miles, with a top speed of 433 mph and a climb rate of 260 mph. They were so sturdy, they could "out-dive" the Warhawk--these were the only two aircraft before the appearance of the Hawker Typhoon and the Mustang which were rated for power dives by the manufacturers. I have read of one Thundebolt which returned from an escort mission with more than 500 separately distinguishable "flak" holes in the body--it was patched and flew again. Only the Boeing Model 299, the Bomber Model 17 "Flying Fortress" had an equivalent record for sustaining damage and returning to base. The Thunderbolt was armed with eight "in-wing" 50 cal.s and could carry either 1500 pounds of bombs in "under-slung" racks or could mount ten 5" rockets for close support missions. Along with the Hawker Typhoon, it because a nightmare for the Wehrmacht.



The Republic Pursuit Model 47N

But none of these planes, neither the American nor the English models, had been designed with the demands of long-ranging bombing escort missions which would arise in Europe in mind. The models i've already mentioned were heavy, and guzzled fuel in "dog-fights," severely limiting their range as escort aircraft. The Thunderbolt was a plane which smart German pilots avoided--it couldn't perform with a Messerschmitt 109 or a Focke-Wulf 190, but it could take far more damage, and could seriously hurt them if it got a good shot at them. Messerschmitt 210s (used to attack the bomber streams) were sitting ducks for the Thunderbolt. However, even without dog-fighting, the Thunderbolts had to turn back at Aachen, on the western border of Germany, and the B-17s and B-24s took heavy casualties in the flight to the targets and back to Aachen. After the Schweinfurt/Regensburg raid in 1943, the United States Army Air Force seriously considered abandoning daylight raids, as the RAF was urging them to do (Churchill always thought the Americans should just provide equipment and warm bodies for English commanders).

The Supermarine Spitfire could perform with the Messerschmitt and Focke-Wulf, but in dog-fighting, it had about 40 minutes in the air--it was not suitable for escort, and could not even be used against German bases in France and the Low Countries until bases were established by the Allies in France. The Hawker Hurricane did have a better range, but could not perform as well, and it was always a dicey proposition for the pilot who went up against the Luftwaffe veterans (many German pilots had been flying in combat since the Spanish Civil war--although they had a more lenient "kill-recognition" policy, it is nonetheless quite amazing that pilots like Galland had more than 300 kills).

The North American Pursuit Model 51 Mustang was the culmination of American warplane designers theories about building a high-performance and ultimately survivable aircraft. It used as much light-weight material in non-critical parts of the design as possible, it carried a truly huge fuel load, the tanks were armored and self-sealing, the engine, ordnance and cockpit spaces were heavily armored, and the design was superb for low-altitude ground-support, high-altitude combat air patrol or escort duty, and it could perform a power dive with the Thunderbolt. But it's original Allison power plant, at 1200 horse power left it woefully underpowered and unable to take advantage of its superior high-performance design. The original design also envisioned carrying bombs or rocket racks "under-slung," and fuel capacity had been sacrificed for that purpose. The initial production model had only 450 miles cruising range and a top speed of 390 mph. It carried six 50 cal.s in-wing. When this production model appeared late in 1940, the Army Air Force were unimpressed.




A North American Pursuit Model 51A


But then a monunmental decision was made, when RAF pilots suggested that the use of the Rolls Royce Merlin engine in the P51 aircraft "might" improve performance. The North American engineers went back to the drawing board, and found that the new engine actually weighed less, and they were able to greatly increase fuel capacity by the weight and space savings, and through a reduction in projected bomb loads. The Packard company was given a license to produce the Merlin engine for North American, and the change was dramatic. The Pursuit Model 51D developed 1695 horse power with the Packard/Rolls Merlin engine, and had a cruising range of more than 1600 miles, with a top speed at 10000 feet of 443 mph, and a scorching climb rate of 275 mph (performance to match even Russian aircraft, little known to have been the best climbing aircraft--Russian design features were superior in many regards, but western chauvinism has ignored this).

Use of wing tanks which could be discarded after reaching the German border, either from England or from Italy, meant that the they could stay in the air literally for hours. They could out-perform the Messerschmitt 109s and the FW 190s, and Messerschmitt 210 pilots were known to land on the nearest highway upon sighting Mustangs. The "Tuskeegee Airmen," the all Black (African-American) 332nd Fighter Group had a perfect record with the Mustang, escorting more than fifty missions to Berlin while losing NO bombers to enemy fighters. (When the boys went in for the bomb run, however, they were vulnerable to ground fire--fighters can't help you in the cauldron.) Although it may be apocryphal, i've read in more than one source that Der Dicke Goering was asked after the war when he knew it was lost, and is said to have replied: "When i saw the first Mustang over Berlin." I once saw a television interview with Chuck Yeager, who became famous as a fighter ace before he was known as a test pilot. In his typical West Virginia country boy manner, he grinned, and then slowly drawled: "What the Spitfire could do for forty minutes, the Mustang could do for eight hours." Adolf Galland, the commander of the Luftwaffe fighters by the end of the war, in his war memoir, The First and the Last, noted that the Mustangs would follow them back to their bases, and shoot up everything and everyone in sight. By the end of the war, the fighters hid in the forests, and took off from logging roads. The Mustangs would leave England or Italy hours after the bombers had taken off, and just as the Thunderbolts turned back, they would pick up the bomber stream and escort them to the target and back to the pick-up point, where the Thunderbolts, re-armed and re-fueled, would pick them up and take them home. Then the Mustangs had anywhere from two to four hours over Germany or Austria to "have fun." They especially loved train-busting--the German trains could be relied upon to run on schedule, come hell or high water, even in war time. They shot up trains, the autobahn, air bases, factories--and by the end of the war complained that "targets of opportunity" were drying up. Many pilots turned for home with fuel in the tanks because they'd shot off all of their 50 cal. ammo and all of their rockets. More than any other aircraft, the North American Mustang was decisive in the air war over Europe.



The North American Pursuit Model 51D

All that being said, both the Mustang and the Spitfire used the Rolls Royce Merlin engine, and i seriously doubt that the comment above about going fast and turning left is any more than hyperbole.

Could be due to gyroscopic force from spinning wheels.

Obviously it was meant as hyperbole, but it has a grain of truth in it. Certainly it got a big laugh among a group of WWII flying vets. (From a bomber pilot to a fighter pilot.)

There is no "gyroscopic effect" with the spinning wheel of a motorcycle that would cause it to favor turning one direction over the other.

Think about how a motorcycle looks if you are standing in front of it. The top of the wheel is moving toward you. If you are standing on the right, the wheel moves clockwise. If you are standing on the left, the wheel move counterclockwise. It is all symetrical and there is no reason for one direction to be any different than the other.

There is a "gyroscopic effect" that resists the change of the orientation of the axis of rotation. But this would effect turns to right or left the same amount. (Those who know the wrong amount of physics will bring of the "right hand rule", but in rotational mechanics this is convention and the math only deals with torque required to change the orientation of the positive and negative axes, both right and left turns will be effected the same.)

The situation with propeller driven airplanes is fundamentally different since the spinning propeller is oriented in a way that is not symetrical. As you are looking at the plane, the top of the propeller is moving to either the right, or the left. It is thus reasonable to expect that the torque will twist the plane to the right or the left.

I have been thinking about this. If a motorcycle has difficulty turning in one direction, it seems likely that there is a mechanical difficulty.

I would not feel safe on this motorcycle.

Ralph - A member here named Wilso rides a motorcycle in Oz.

The only force that would significantly affect the steering is gyroscopic precession, and that is equal for left and right turns (It is what leaning into the turn does to turn the front wheel or, conversely, what turning the wheel does to lean the bike into the turn.

Coriolis, due to the earth's rotation would, as already noted, be too small to measure - unless the bike was going 1000MPH or so.

A compass can be affected by a left/right turn, but I do not think a vehicle itself would have particular effect with a lower speed like motor cycles.

Sorry, the direction I wrote as clockwise should be counter clockwise.

In a single propeller plane thrusts the plane forward but does create a torque as the air flows by in a clockwise or counter clockwise.

I don't have a Physics textbook with me any more but there is a formula for calculating it. I vaguely remember seeing an experiment where a spinning wheel in precession.