Gyroscopic effects
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: The Older Gentleman on 11 Jul 2010 13:12 ? <breoganmacbrath(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Gyroscopic forces work in *exactly* the same planes as rake and trail > work in, but the forces aren't significant at the speed you ride at on > the street or at legal highway speed. Yes they are > > Even at 120 mph, the front wheel is only turning around 1600 rpm and, > since modern wheels and tires are so light, there just isn't much > flywheel effect. Yes there is. -- BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes! Try Googling before asking a damn silly question. chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
From: Twibil on 11 Jul 2010 22:39 On Jul 11, 10:12 am, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote: > > > > Even at 120 mph, the front wheel is only turning around 1600 rpm and, > > since modern wheels and tires are so light, there just isn't much > > flywheel effect. > > Yes there is. Here's a test so easy that even Krusty could do it: 1.) Move your motorcycle's front wheel quickly from side to side at circa 5 MPH. Note that the wheel moves back and forth rather easily. 2.) Speed up to 60 MPH and repeat the process. Note that the same amount of steering input you used at 5 MPH now takes quite a bit more effort. 3.) Increase your speed to oh, say, 120 MPH and try it yet again. Note that the steering now requires a good stiff push, and it's become almost impossible to move the bars back and forth as quickly as you could at the original 5 MPH. The differences you're feeling are entirely due to the increase in gyroscopic force as the bike's front wheel gains RPM; and just about anyone who's ever ridden a bicycle or motorcycle has already felt this for themselves. The fact that Krusty apparently *hasn't* felt it is yet another good reason to suspect that he's never ridden a motorcycle in his life.
From: S'mee on 11 Jul 2010 23:29 On Jul 11, 4:28 pm, "Stephen!" <N...(a)spam.com> wrote: > CindiK <cindi.k...(a)gmail.com> wrote in news:ca36e708-0930-4f23-9646- > 93f5a7de0...(a)t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com: > > > > > I know the angular momentum of the driveshaft in shaft-driven bikes > > makes it impossible for them to wheelie. > > Nice presentation. Oughta catch a few with that cast. She did, not bad for a dullsville rider. 8^)
From: CindiK on 12 Jul 2010 09:52 On Jul 11, 10:29 pm, "S'mee" <stevenkei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 11, 4:28 pm, "Stephen!" <N...(a)spam.com> wrote: > > > CindiK <cindi.k...(a)gmail.com> wrote in news:ca36e708-0930-4f23-9646- > > 93f5a7de0...(a)t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com: > > > > I know the angular momentum of the driveshaft in shaft-driven bikes > > > makes it impossible for them to wheelie. > > > Nice presentation. Oughta catch a few with that cast. > > She did, not bad for a dullsville rider. 8^) The catching is easy. I'm less fond of the taking them off the hook and gutting and cleaning them. -- Cindi Knox iba(a)cindiknox.com 1997 Suzuki LS650P "That Damn Savage" 2010 Honda NT700V - "Charis" AMA #606868, DoD #2046, IBA #3700, NGG Alliteration Advocate, NTOC #??? WoW #9098
From: Henry on 12 Jul 2010 11:19
tomorrow(a)erols.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. > No, what's silly is that you waste so much time making up stuff like > this to "respond" to. Nothing was made up. I just quote and reply to the idiocy. It's fun, and it also provides a valuable service to readers who might actually believe the nonsense. -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org |