Gyroscopic effects
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: High Plains Thumper on 9 Jul 2010 20:32 Mark Olson wrote: > Motorcycle wheels despite their smaller diameter, are pretty heavy > compared to bicycle wheels, so their gyroscopic forces are orders of > magnitudes higher. Remember 16" front wheels? They were in vogue in > the mid 80s as a cure for too much gyroscopic effect. > > I remember reading that roadracers had to develop significant upper > body strength to steer their bikes on twisty courses due to the gyro > effect. Perhaps, but IME, I have never had a problem running the twisties, FWIW. I think target fixation would be a greater problem, IMO. -- HPT
From: High Plains Thumper on 9 Jul 2010 20:37 ? wrote: > High Plains Thumper wrote: > >> Just to think back then in the 1960's, we didn't wear bicycle >> helmets, AFAIK, those weren't even available, I didn't know they >> existed. > > I first became aware of motorcycle helmets during the cold winter of > 1963. I thought that it would be nice to wear a helmet to keep my > head warm, but the helmets at the base exchange cost about $12 and I > couldn't afford the luxury... Especially at the same time in the base hobby shop, Scientific C/L airplane kits were less than $1, .049 engine was under $3, rubber band powered Comet kits were under $1 for the smaller and under $2 for the larger. At the same time, my idea of a motorcycle was a bicycle with balloons tied to the struts making a thump-thump-thump against the spokes. That was cooler sounding than playing cards. :-) -- HPT
From: Mark Olson on 9 Jul 2010 23:11 High Plains Thumper wrote: > Mark Olson wrote: >> I remember reading that roadracers had to develop significant upper >> body strength to steer their bikes on twisty courses due to the gyro >> effect. > > Perhaps, but IME, I have never had a problem running the twisties, FWIW. > I think target fixation would be a greater problem, IMO. I doubt you are going 120 in the corners and 180 on the straights either.
From: S'mee on 10 Jul 2010 00:34 On Jul 9, 4:41 pm, BryanUT <nestl...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Jul 9, 1:28 pm, "tomor...(a)erols.com" > > > > > > <tomorrowaterolsdot...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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. > > Proof gyroscopic effects don't work: > > http://bitsandpieces.us/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/imagesbike-riding.gif- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - ROTFLMAO...I thought I erased that tape of my first son.
From: S'mee on 10 Jul 2010 00:35
On Jul 9, 3:57 pm, "Beav" <beavis.origi...(a)ntlwoxorld.com> wrote: > "?" <breoganmacbr...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:d18a8adf-8d9c-4080-adf1-e56d942decb7(a)p22g2000pre.googlegroups.com... > > > 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. > > Hook, line, sinker, basket and a copy of "Angling Times" Hell I'd say he deep throated the boat also... |