Gyroscopic effects
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: Bob Myers on 9 Jul 2010 14:02 ? wrote: > On Jul 9, 2:10 am, CindiK <cindi.k...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> I know the angular momentum of the driveshaft in shaft-driven bikes >> makes it impossible for them to wheelie. > > Anything that small in diameter has *no* significant angular momentum. Wow, Cindi, you snagged a big one! How pleasing to see our leading Self-Proclaimed-Expert-On-Everything-Troll caught like that. Bob M.
From: tomorrow on 9 Jul 2010 14:10 On Jul 9, 10:36 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > tomor...(a)erols.com wrote: > > On Jul 9, 7:18 am, "Snag" <snag_...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> CindiK wrote: > >>> I know the angular momentum of the driveshaft in shaft-driven bikes > >>> makes it impossible for them to wheelie. > >> Bullshit > > Yes, but it is vintage, classic, succinct, and comfortingly familiar > > reeky traditional bullshit! > > Unlike your and twitbull's claim I'd much rather be lumped in with Pete and his positions - even when doing so is as nonsensical as you doing so above - than to ever be associated with anything that you have to say, Henry. It speaks volumes of your obsession that you can't keep your attacks on Pete confined to responding to his postings, or even to the thread in which you are currently attacking him.
From: tomorrow on 9 Jul 2010 15:28 On Jul 9, 3:15 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > tomor...(a)erols.com wrote: > > On Jul 9, 10:36 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > >> tomor...(a)erols.com wrote: > >>> Yes, but it is vintage, classic, succinct, and comfortingly familiar > >>> reeky traditional bullshit! > >> Unlike your and twitbull's claim > > Oh wow, you're so embarrassed by what you've said that you > had to censor it. Here's what you and twitbull believe. And > yes, it's very, very wrong. > > "Left to it's [sic] own devices, a non-sidecar bike will fall > right over. And this is equally true whether said bike is moving > or at rest." That right there is some brand new reeky bullshit! <g> > > > I'd much rather be lumped in with Pete and his positions - even when > > doing so is as nonsensical as you doing so above > > The nonsense is yours and twit's, Tim. Like everyone but you > and twitbull, I understand that a moving bike will most definitely > not fall right over just as quickly as a stationary bike. Since > you believe that, you must also believe that all the people who've > seen riderless bikes roll along for considerable distances are > delusional, and all the videos showing the same thing are faked. > That's incredibly silly. No, what's silly is that you waste so much time making up stuff like this to "respond" to. While you are feeling all intellectually superior, well, everyone else knows what reaction they are having.
From: Doug Payne on 9 Jul 2010 15:26 On 09/07/2010 5:10 AM, CindiK wrote: > I know the angular momentum of the driveshaft in shaft-driven bikes > makes it impossible for them to wheelie. Nah, the final drive's just a tad low on dilithium crystals.
From: Bob Myers on 9 Jul 2010 17:17
J. Clarke wrote: > <http://www.amazon.com/Bicycle-Wheel-Gyroscope-Rotating-Platform/dp/B0017Y38CA> > > 63 bucks. Anybody with a real interest should spend the money and > give it a try. The conservation of angular momentum: it's not just a good idea, it's the *law*. :-) Bob M. |