this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2026
59 points (100.0% liked)
Animals
376 readers
68 users here now
Anything and everything about non-human animals.
Rules:
- Posts should be relevant to non-human animals, including articles (news or just interesting facts), pictures (OC only but the animals need not be your pets), or text posts.
- Keep things civil. Don't insult other users or their pets. Do not post content that promotes animal abuse (this does not include content, like news, that portrays abuse in a negative light).
- Follow site-wide rules
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments

That makes sense. Refreshing myself on the X-29, I remember its inherent instability being something of note. Thinking about it now, I can understand that being something desired or undesired depending on the outcome one wants. I recall learning about countersteering a bicycle to get better turning by inducing instability, which sounds bad on its own, but otherwise one doesn't get the maneuverability to not crash on sharp turns. Meanwhile, the X-29 wiki said that should the stability systems that make 40 adjustments per second suddenly fail for some reason, basically the thing would become so unstable it would disintegrate before the pilot could even think of ejecting.
Yes, as long as you are holding the handlebar forward, the bike's stability is negative; it wants to fall over. If you release the handlebar, assuming you're going fast enough, the bike will pick itself up. This is easier to feel in motorcycles where the forces are greater.
I remember a number of people referring to even walking as just controlled falling. Thinking about all these examples really makes me consider how much we purposefully lose balance without even considering it! Next time I'm clumsy, I will have to say I'm just working on experimental forms of stability control. 😅