Posted by Henry on July 9, 2010, 3:00 pm
tomorrow@erols.com wrote:
>> Twitbull timidly backpedaled and weaseled:
>>>>> Note: Left to it's own devices, a non-sidecar bike will fall right
>>>>> over. And this is equally true whether said bike is moving or at rest.
>>>>> It's only the kickstand when at rest, or the rider's constant
>>>>> corrections when moving, that keep it upright.
>>>> You're joking? I've seen bikes buck their rider off then proceed to the
>>>> next corner just fine on their own. I assume you have too.
>>> Sigh.
>>> Yes, a bike at speed is dynamically stable.
>> You said that left to its own devices, a bike will fall right
>> over, and whether said bike is at speed or at rest makes no
>> difference. You're backpedaling and weaseling again.
> Only in HenryWorld does someone who, upon being attacked based on word
> choice, EXPANDS and CLARIFIES what was originally meant, get attacked
> AGAIN as backpedaling and weaseling.
Earth to Timmy! twit claimed that there is no difference in
stability between a moving bike and a bike at rest - they'll
both fall right over and moving makes no difference.
Now it's claiming that a bike at speed is dynamically stable.
Ask twitbull why it "thinks" the more stable bike will fall
right over just as easily and the stationary bike. I'd ask twit
myself, but it's been reduced to hiding from its own idiocy
behind its killfile. <chuckle>
--
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
Posted by tomorrow@erols.com on July 9, 2010, 3:31 pm
> tomor...@erols.com wrote:
> >> Twitbull timidly backpedaled and weaseled:
> >>>>> Note: Left to it's own devices, a non-sidecar bike will fall right
> >>>>> over. And this is equally true whether said bike is moving or at rest.
> >>>>> It's only the kickstand when at rest, or the rider's constant
> >>>>> corrections when moving, that keep it upright.
> >>>> You're joking? I've seen bikes buck their rider off then proceed to the
> >>>> next corner just fine on their own. I assume you have too.
> >>> Sigh.
> >>> Yes, a bike at speed is dynamically stable.
> >> You said that left to its own devices, a bike will fall right
> >> over, and whether said bike is at speed or at rest makes no
> >> difference. You're backpedaling and weaseling again.
> > Only in HenryWorld does someone who, upon being attacked based on word
> > choice, EXPANDS and CLARIFIES what was originally meant, get attacked
> > AGAIN as backpedaling and weaseling.
> Earth to Timmy! twit claimed that there is no difference in
> stability between a moving bike and a bike at rest - they'll
> both fall right over and moving makes no difference.
> Now it's claiming that a bike at speed is dynamically stable.
> Ask twitbull why it "thinks" the more stable bike will fall
> right over just as easily and the stationary bike. I'd ask twit
> myself, but it's been reduced to hiding from its own idiocy
> behind its killfile. <chuckle>
Must be fun to be so self-satisfied.
Posted by sean_q_ on July 8, 2010, 2:21 pm
Vito wrote:
> | Make a hard left turn; the chair lifts because it lacks
> | enough weight to keep the bike from leaning into the turn.
>
> I don't think so. A bike must be forced to lean, either by 'body english'
> or counter-steering.
Instead of "Make a hard left turn" perhaps I should have said,
"apply clockwise torque to the steering" which, on a non-sidecar
bike is the countersteering action to initiate a left turn.
With a sidecar is present, but of negligible weight, the bike
should behave "normally". That is, lean (and turn) left.
Of course in the Real World a sidecar has significant mass.
Its weight is what prevents the above; up to a limit, anyway.
Beyond that, the chair lifts.
Now where did my Paradox get to? I know I left it lying around
here somewhere...
SQ
XML Sitemap
>>>>> Note: Left to it's own devices, a non-sidecar bike will fall right
>>>>> over. And this is equally true whether said bike is moving or at rest.
>>>>> It's only the kickstand when at rest, or the rider's constant
>>>>> corrections when moving, that keep it upright.
>>>> You're joking? I've seen bikes buck their rider off then proceed to the
>>>> next corner just fine on their own. I assume you have too.
>>> Sigh.
>>> Yes, a bike at speed is dynamically stable.
>> You said that left to its own devices, a bike will fall right
>> over, and whether said bike is at speed or at rest makes no
>> difference. You're backpedaling and weaseling again.
> Only in HenryWorld does someone who, upon being attacked based on word
> choice, EXPANDS and CLARIFIES what was originally meant, get attacked
> AGAIN as backpedaling and weaseling.