Posted by JREwing on August 27, 2008, 10:24 am
On Aug 26, 11:26�pm, totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk (The Older
Gentleman) wrote:
> Now: bikes tilt over on their tyres. Cars don't. That leads to some
> crucial construction differences between the two. Think about it.
Yes, a radial *car* tire is definitely built differently from a
*motorcycle* radial.
The motorcycle radial has stiff rubber "flippers" to support the
sidewalls and the car tire doesn't have flippers.
Motorcycle tire engineers use the stiffness of the triangular-shaped
flippers as rubber springs...
It's OK for a car's wheel to move a little sideways in relation to the
tread during hard cornering.
Autocross racers adjust their tire pressure so the sidewalls will rub
the pavement just a tiny bit. If the sidewall doesn't rub a bit,
there's too much air in the tire.
I was talking to Doug Bingham about car tires on sidecar rigs after
looking at a Dutch EZ-S rig on a 1200 Bandit.
It had car wheels and car tires.
Doug builds and sells sidecars for a living and organizes the Griffith
Park Sidecar Rally every year.
He said that he'd tried radial car tires on solo bikes and that they
were squirrelly.
And, *nobody* in here has even mentioned *bias-ply* car tires on
motorcycles.
I don't know if you can even *buy* low-profile bias-ply tires.
Posted by JREwing on August 26, 2008, 12:32 am
> Oh sure bring Hen3y up why don't you. Any way it wasn't the SR-71 it
> was the X-15 and they never landed, just orbited.
You're as full of shit as a Christmas goose. I'm the only person I
know who has ever seen an X-15, other than the one in the Smithsonian.
I've actually *smelled* the X-15. I could tell it was in the hangar
from the moment I walked in the front door, the whole facility smelled
of ammonia.
I worked on the B-52 mother ships and actually saw some of the first
X-15
flights with the smaller 8-barrel engines. It was not as fast as an
F-104 fighter with the small engine.
I even went on an X-15 support flight to a dry lake near Hawthorne,
NV, which was one of the recovery sites if the rocket engine failed to
start.
Nevada to Edwards AFB was the limit of the X-15's range.
Posted by Twibil on August 26, 2008, 2:27 am
> Nevada to Edwards AFB was the limit of the X-15's range.
Um, yes, but they weren't going for range, and the X-15's peak
altitude of 67 miles was well beyond all but 0.00003% of the Earth's
atmosphere, making it the first real spacecraft; and it still beats
SpaceShipOne's record of 62.2 miles that was set some 40 years later.
It also still holds the all-time speed record for winged aircraft at
Mach 6.72.
Pretty impressive for a little rocket ship that was built clear back
in the 1950s.
Posted by JREwing on August 26, 2008, 10:11 am
> Um, yes, but they weren't going for range, and the X-15's peak
> altitude of 67 miles was well beyond all but 0.00003% of the Earth's
> atmosphere, making it the first real spacecraft; and it still beats
> SpaceShipOne's record of 62.2 miles that was set some 40 years later.
SpaceShipOne's achievement was damned impressive, when you consider
that was a private company doing it, not a government-financed
project.
> It also still holds the all-time speed record for winged aircraft at
> Mach 6.72.
The space shuttle isn't an aircraft? Right...
> Pretty impressive for a little rocket ship that was built clear back
> in the 1950s.
Little? Chuck Yeager's X-1 was little, the X-15 was about twice as
long and four times as big.
Posted by Twibil on August 26, 2008, 2:58 pm
> > It also still holds the all-time speed record for winged aircraft at
> > Mach 6.72.
> The space shuttle isn't an aircraft? Right...
Look it up, doofus.
> Little? Chuck Yeager's X-1 was little, the X-15 was about twice as
> long and four times as big.
And speaking of big, your ego seems to be doing just fine. And for
very little reason that the rest of us can see.
> crucial construction differences between the two. Think about it.