OT MV related:Gravity lesson

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by Simon, Apr 11, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Simon

    Simon Guest

    In recent days many have had the fun of trying to educate MV on the effects of gravity. His main
    argument is thus:

    Bikes with shock absorbers weigh more and hence cause more damage to trails.

    Anyone with a mere basic understanding of physics will say this is absolutely wrong. Some people
    with a little more physics knowledge (Mike himself) will say this is true. Whilst those with a firm
    understanding of physics will say its laughably incorrect.

    Here's why:

    Acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s/s we all know this..There are slight variations in this
    numerical value (to the second decimal place) which are dependent primarily upon altitude.

    Mike argues that since "force (f)= mass (m) x acceleration (a)" a larger mass will create more
    force. This is true in itself, its obvious.

    However mike then says that the acceleration (a) is gravity. This is where he has shown no
    understanding of advanced physics.

    If we let him have the fact that (a) is indeed gravity we all know that acceleration due to gravity
    is constant regardless of mass. In other words a bike and a hiker both will accelerate at the same
    speed due to gravity when in a free fall situation.

    Therefore it can be seen that mike is very confused with regards to physics and has a tendency to
    change his argument when cornered.

    Its all good fun and yes the above is verifiable should anyone require it.

    Simon.........I like mike, he makes me look good. We should market him as an accessory.
     
    Tags:


  2. Simon

    Simon Guest

    Not a reply to my own post just did not wish to start another but.......

    I was just thinking the more we keep Mike V here the less time he has to annoy people out in the
    wild. So I guess we are in fact doing mtb'ers of the world a favour.

    Simon.........comments from mike always welcome.
     
  3. Bomba

    Bomba Guest

    Simon wrote:

    > Mike argues that since "force (f)= mass (m) x acceleration (a)" a larger mass will create more
    > force. This is true in itself, its obvious.
    >
    > However mike then says that the acceleration (a) is gravity. This is where he has shown no
    > understanding of advanced physics.
    >
    > If we let him have the fact that (a) is indeed gravity we all know that acceleration due to
    > gravity is constant regardless of mass. In other words a bike and a hiker both will accelerate at
    > the same speed due to gravity when in a free fall situation.
    >
    > Therefore it can be seen that mike is very confused with regards to physics and has a tendency to
    > change his argument when cornered.

    Ok, my physics isn't that good, I'll play.

    If you're taking F=MA and A is a constant (9.8 m/s), then surely force is directionally
    proportional mass?
     
  4. Simon

    Simon Guest

    "bomba" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    | Simon wrote:
    |
    | > Mike argues that since "force (f)= mass (m) x acceleration (a)" a larger mass will create more
    | > force. This is true in itself, its obvious.
    | >
    | > However mike then says that the acceleration (a) is gravity. This is
    where
    | > he has shown no understanding of advanced physics.
    | >
    | > If we let him have the fact that (a) is indeed gravity we all know that acceleration due to
    | > gravity is constant regardless of mass. In other
    words a
    | > bike and a hiker both will accelerate at the same speed due to gravity
    when
    | > in a free fall situation.
    | >
    | > Therefore it can be seen that mike is very confused with regards to
    physics
    | > and has a tendency to change his argument when cornered.
    |
    | Ok, my physics isn't that good, I'll play.
    |
    | If you're taking F=MA and A is a constant (9.8 m/s), then surely force is directionally
    | proportional mass?
    |
    I am not talking that at all. Mike is and thats why he is wrong and his knowledge is flawed. He is
    trying to substitute incorrect sections within standard equations.

    Its all topsy turvy

    Simon.........prefers to think bike goes up+bike comes down=fun
     
  5. John Harlow

    John Harlow Guest

    > > Mike argues that since "force (f)= mass (m) x acceleration (a)" a larger mass will create more
    > > force. This is true in itself, its obvious.
    > >
    > > However mike then says that the acceleration (a) is gravity. This is
    where
    > > he has shown no understanding of advanced physics.
    > >
    > > If we let him have the fact that (a) is indeed gravity we all know that acceleration due to
    > > gravity is constant regardless of mass. In other
    words a
    > > bike and a hiker both will accelerate at the same speed due to gravity
    when
    > > in a free fall situation.
    > >
    > > Therefore it can be seen that mike is very confused with regards to
    physics
    > > and has a tendency to change his argument when cornered.
    >
    > Ok, my physics isn't that good, I'll play.
    >
    > If you're taking F=MA and A is a constant (9.8 m/s), then surely force is directionally
    > proportional mass?

    Shock Absorbers work by converting a high force short duration impact into a lower force long
    duration impact. Without a shock absorber, the peak impact force is far greater than with one, but
    for a shorter time period. This high peak shock impact is the principle which jackhammers use to
    destroy concrete; a jackhammer with a shock absorber would be ineffective.

    Specifically; Force (Shock Absorber) Decelleration g's (in gravitational units)
    -----------------------------------
    Impact weight (Shock Absorber)

    So, one can see by increasing the impact weight *of the shock absorber* the number of g's
    are reduced.

    Effective Impact weight (We) can be expressed as:

    5.36 Fd S We = -------- V^2

    where Fd is Drive force (rider weight in lbs), S is Shock Absorber stroke length (inches), and V is
    Linear Velocity of the impact of the Shock Absorber (ft/sec)

    Therefore, either a longer stroke or lower rider weight will reduce G forces to the wheel. A
    hardtail (zero stroke length) has the highest impact force.
     
  6. Bomba

    Bomba Guest

    Simon wrote:

    > | If you're taking F=MA and A is a constant (9.8 m/s), then surely force is directionally
    > | proportional mass?
    > |
    > I am not talking that at all. Mike is and thats why he is wrong and his knowledge is flawed. He is
    > trying to substitute incorrect sections within standard equations.

    You've totally lost me. Are you now saying that A can not be replaced with gravity?

    I haven't read any of Mike's posts on this subject, but your post seems totally wrong, and justifies
    Mike's position. I can't see anything wrong with asserting that extra weight leads to more force.
    It's a simplistic view, but it stands up to (my knowledge of) the laws of physics.
     
  7. Simon

    Simon Guest

    "John Harlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    |
    |
    | > > Mike argues that since "force (f)= mass (m) x acceleration (a)" a
    larger
    | > > mass will create more force. This is true in itself, its obvious.
    | > >
    | > > However mike then says that the acceleration (a) is gravity. This is
    | where
    | > > he has shown no understanding of advanced physics.
    | > >
    | > > If we let him have the fact that (a) is indeed gravity we all know
    that
    | > > acceleration due to gravity is constant regardless of mass. In other
    | words a
    | > > bike and a hiker both will accelerate at the same speed due to gravity
    | when
    | > > in a free fall situation.
    | > >
    | > > Therefore it can be seen that mike is very confused with regards to
    | physics
    | > > and has a tendency to change his argument when cornered.
    | >
    | > Ok, my physics isn't that good, I'll play.
    | >
    | > If you're taking F=MA and A is a constant (9.8 m/s), then surely force is directionally
    | > proportional mass?
    |
    | Shock Absorbers work by converting a high force short duration impact into
    a
    | lower force long duration impact. Without a shock absorber, the peak
    impact
    | force is far greater than with one, but for a shorter time period. This high peak shock impact is
    | the principle which jackhammers use to destroy concrete; a jackhammer with a shock absorber would
    | be ineffective.
    |
    | Specifically; Force (Shock Absorber) Decelleration g's (in gravitational units)
    | -----------------------------------
    | Impact weight (Shock Absorber)
    |
    | So, one can see by increasing the impact weight *of the shock absorber*
    the
    | number of g's are reduced.
    |
    | Effective Impact weight (We) can be expressed as:
    |
    | 5.36 Fd S We = -------- V^2
    |
    | where Fd is Drive force (rider weight in lbs), S is Shock Absorber stroke length (inches), and V
    | is Linear Velocity of the impact of the Shock Absorber (ft/sec)
    |
    | Therefore, either a longer stroke or lower rider weight will reduce G
    forces
    | to the wheel. A hardtail (zero stroke length) has the highest impact force.

    He's(mv) been told, just refuses to believe it. I fail to see who can n ot understand that. I have a
    4 year old that can grasp the basics.

    Simon
     
  8. Simon

    Simon Guest

    "bomba" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    | Simon wrote:
    |
    | > | If you're taking F=MA and A is a constant (9.8 m/s), then surely force is directionally
    | > | proportional mass?
    | > |
    | > I am not talking that at all. Mike is and thats why he is wrong and his knowledge is flawed. He
    | > is trying to substitute incorrect sections
    within
    | > standard equations.
    |
    | You've totally lost me. Are you now saying that A can not be replaced with gravity?
    |
    | I haven't read any of Mike's posts on this subject, but your post seems totally wrong, and
    | justifies Mike's position. I can't see anything wrong with asserting that extra weight leads to
    | more force. It's a simplistic view, but it stands up to (my knowledge of) the laws of
    physics.
    |
    |

    Okay firstly if you have not read (reads been entertained) by mikes posts its difficult to follow i
    agree. He has basically taken a standard equation and revised it as and when the argument changes. I
    am not trying to allay his claims or re-enforce them. Guess I am just rambling out loud.

    Simon.........loves the amusement side of newgroups.
     
  9. Dick

    Dick Guest

    Me thinks an easier way to prove that shocks save (or don't save) dirt would be to make a suspension
    shovel and see how well it digs.

    Simon wrote:
    > In recent days many have had the fun of trying to educate MV on the effects of gravity. His main
    > argument is thus:
    >
    > Bikes with shock absorbers weigh more and hence cause more damage to trails.
    >
    > Anyone with a mere basic understanding of physics will say this is absolutely wrong. Some people
    > with a little more physics knowledge (Mike himself) will say this is true. Whilst those with a
    > firm understanding of physics will say its laughably incorrect.
    >
    > Here's why:
    >
    > Acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s/s we all know this..There are slight variations in this
    > numerical value (to the second decimal place) which are dependent primarily upon altitude.
    >
    > Mike argues that since "force (f)= mass (m) x acceleration (a)" a larger mass will create more
    > force. This is true in itself, its obvious.
    >
    > However mike then says that the acceleration (a) is gravity. This is where he has shown no
    > understanding of advanced physics.
    >
    > If we let him have the fact that (a) is indeed gravity we all know that acceleration due to
    > gravity is constant regardless of mass. In other words a bike and a hiker both will accelerate at
    > the same speed due to gravity when in a free fall situation.
    >
    > Therefore it can be seen that mike is very confused with regards to physics and has a tendency to
    > change his argument when cornered.
    >
    > Its all good fun and yes the above is verifiable should anyone require it.
    >
    > Simon.........I like mike, he makes me look good. We should market him as an accessory.
     
  10. "Simon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > In recent days many have had the fun of trying to educate MV on the
    effects
    > of gravity.

    Simple version:

    Take two pairs of forks, one set of Marzocci Monster T's with soft springs in, one pair of rigids.
    Add weight to the rigids until both forks weight the same. Hit Mike V. on the head with said forks.
    Which one feels best Mikey?

    Steve E.
     
  11. Simon

    Simon Guest

    "spademan o---[) *" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    |
    | "Simon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    | news:[email protected]...
    | >
    | > In recent days many have had the fun of trying to educate MV on the
    | effects
    | > of gravity.
    |
    | Simple version:
    |
    | Take two pairs of forks, one set of Marzocci Monster T's with soft springs in, one pair of rigids.
    | Add weight to the rigids until both forks weight
    the
    | same. Hit Mike V. on the head with said forks. Which one feels best Mikey?
    |
    | Steve E.
    |
    |
    Ohhhhhhhh now you done it. He will report you to your isp for death threats now.lol

    I like it though

    Simon
     
  12. "Simon" <[email protected]> wrote
    >
    > Mike argues that since "force (f)= mass (m) x acceleration (a)" a larger mass will create more
    > force. This is true in itself, its obvious.

    Yes, this is correct.

    > However mike then says that the acceleration (a) is gravity. This is where he has shown no
    > understanding of advanced physics.

    I'm not sure what "advanced physics" is like on your planet, but Mike is also correct here. "a" is
    the gravitational acceleration, for a stationary bike, or for one rolling on a smooth surface.

    > If we let him have the fact that (a) is indeed gravity we all know that acceleration due to
    > gravity is constant regardless of mass. In other words a bike and a hiker both will accelerate at
    > the same speed due to gravity when in a free fall situation.

    Both _will_ accelerate at the same rate in free fall. Your point is?

    > Therefore it can be seen that mike is very confused with regards to physics and has a tendency to
    > change his argument when cornered.

    Wow. Uh, what?

    CC
     
  13. W K

    W K Guest

    "John Harlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:tOzla.91905

    <snip>

    > Therefore, either a longer stroke or lower rider weight will reduce G
    forces
    > to the wheel. A hardtail (zero stroke length) has the highest impact force.

    All true, but I bet you ride harder and make up for the difference.

    BTW is there a better expression for "G forces" ? "Forces caused by rapid decelleration" perhaps?
     
  14. W K

    W K Guest

    "bomba" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Simon wrote:
    >
    > > | If you're taking F=MA and A is a constant (9.8 m/s), then surely force is directionally
    > > | proportional mass?
    > > |
    > > I am not talking that at all. Mike is and thats why he is wrong and his knowledge is flawed. He
    > > is trying to substitute incorrect sections
    within
    > > standard equations.
    >
    > You've totally lost me. Are you now saying that A can not be replaced with gravity?
    >
    > I haven't read any of Mike's posts on this subject, but your post seems totally wrong, and
    > justifies Mike's position. I can't see anything wrong with asserting that extra weight leads to
    > more force. It's a simplistic view, but it stands up to (my knowledge of) the laws of
    physics.

    I'd suggest that gravity should be described as being 9.8 N/Kg. So, a 100kg bike+rider has a
    downward force of 9800 N. And thats nothing to do with F=MA if you aren't moving (downwards).

    But as soon as theres nothing under said bike it'll start hurtling towards the earth at.... F=MA ...
    9800 = 100 x accelleration. hey presto 9.8 m/s

    Accelleration and gravity get freely and incorrecly mixed. "pulling 5G" or whatever means you are
    accellerating at 50ish m/s /s and you get forces that feel like 5x gravity.

    Where did this start again?
     
  15. Simon

    Simon Guest

    "Corvus Corvax" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    | "Simon" <[email protected]> wrote
    | >
    | > Mike argues that since "force (f)= mass (m) x acceleration (a)" a larger mass will create more
    | > force. This is true in itself, its obvious.
    |
    | Yes, this is correct.
    |
    | > However mike then says that the acceleration (a) is gravity. This is
    where
    | > he has shown no understanding of advanced physics.
    |
    | I'm not sure what "advanced physics" is like on your planet, but Mike is also correct here. "a" is
    | the gravitational acceleration, for a stationary bike, or for one rolling on a smooth surface.
    |
    | > If we let him have the fact that (a) is indeed gravity we all know that acceleration due to
    | > gravity is constant regardless of mass. In other
    words a
    | > bike and a hiker both will accelerate at the same speed due to gravity
    when
    | > in a free fall situation.
    |
    | Both _will_ accelerate at the same rate in free fall. Your point is?
    |
    | > Therefore it can be seen that mike is very confused with regards to
    physics
    | > and has a tendency to change his argument when cornered.
    |
    | Wow. Uh, what?
    |
    | CC

    Acceleration is not gravity. (a) is often referred to as acceleration DUE to gravity.

    http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/1DKin/U1L5e.html

    Simon
     
  16. On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 13:35:55 +0100, "Simon" <[email protected]> wrote:

    . .In recent days many have had the fun of trying to educate MV on the effects .of gravity. His main
    argument is thus: . .Bikes with shock absorbers weigh more and hence cause more damage to trails. .
    .Anyone with a mere basic understanding of physics will say this is .absolutely wrong. Some people
    with a little more physics knowledge (Mike .himself) will say this is true. Whilst those with a firm
    understanding of .physics will say its laughably incorrect. . .Here's why: . .Acceleration due to
    gravity is 9.8 m/s/s we all know this..There are slight .variations in this numerical value (to the
    second decimal place) which are .dependent primarily upon altitude. . .Mike argues that since "force
    (f)= mass (m) x acceleration (a)" a larger .mass will create more force. This is true in itself, its
    obvious. . .However mike then says that the acceleration (a) is gravity. This is where .he has shown
    no understanding of advanced physics.

    You are LYING. I said that gravity is an acceleration, not the reverse.

    .If we let him have the fact that (a) is indeed gravity we all know that .acceleration due to
    gravity is constant regardless of mass. In other words a .bike and a hiker both will accelerate at
    the same speed due to gravity when .in a free fall situation.

    Right, but the FORCE applied to the ground will be greater, from the greater mass. DUH!

    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to
    help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
  17. Westie

    Westie Guest

    "Simon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > In recent days many have had the fun of trying to educate MV on the
    effects
    > of gravity. His main argument is thus:
    >
    > Bikes with shock absorbers weigh more and hence cause more damage to
    trails.
    >
    > Anyone with a mere basic understanding of physics will say this is absolutely wrong. Some people
    > with a little more physics knowledge (Mike himself) will say this is true. Whilst those with a
    > firm understanding of physics will say its laughably incorrect.
    >
    > Here's why:
    >
    > Acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s/s we all know this..There are
    slight
    > variations in this numerical value (to the second decimal place) which are dependent primarily
    > upon altitude.
    >
    > Mike argues that since "force (f)= mass (m) x acceleration (a)" a larger mass will create more
    > force. This is true in itself, its obvious.
    >
    > However mike then says that the acceleration (a) is gravity. This is where he has shown no
    > understanding of advanced physics.
    >
    > If we let him have the fact that (a) is indeed gravity we all know that acceleration due to
    > gravity is constant regardless of mass. In other words
    a
    > bike and a hiker both will accelerate at the same speed due to gravity
    when
    > in a free fall situation.
    >
    > Therefore it can be seen that mike is very confused with regards to
    physics
    > and has a tendency to change his argument when cornered.
    >
    > Its all good fun and yes the above is verifiable should anyone require it.
    >
    > Simon.........I like mike, he makes me look good. We should market him as
    an
    > accessory.
    >
    >

    As much as I don't want to agree with MV, I think that he was trying to say that a heavier bike
    creates more damage when it hits the ground. Which on it's own is probably true. But as John
    explains in another thread posted here, the suspension spreads out that force. So while MV is right
    in his own way, he conveniently ignores other parts of the debate that, when taken into
    consideration, make all the difference. And _that's_ a standard MV technique.
    --
    Westie --"Life is what happens while you're planning to do other things"--
     
  18. On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 14:53:08 +0200, bomba <[email protected]> wrote:

    .Simon wrote: . .> Mike argues that since "force (f)= mass (m) x acceleration (a)" a larger .> mass
    will create more force. This is true in itself, its obvious. .> .> However mike then says that the
    acceleration (a) is gravity. This is where .> he has shown no understanding of advanced physics. .>
    .> If we let him have the fact that (a) is indeed gravity we all know that .> acceleration due to
    gravity is constant regardless of mass. In other words a .> bike and a hiker both will accelerate at
    the same speed due to gravity when .> in a free fall situation. .> .> Therefore it can be seen that
    mike is very confused with regards to physics .> and has a tendency to change his argument when
    cornered. . .Ok, my physics isn't that good, I'll play. . .If you're taking F=MA and A is a constant
    (9.8 m/s), then surely force .is directionally proportional mass?

    BINGO! You are on your way to enlightenment. Or maybe that was IT!
    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to
    help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
  19. On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 13:54:34 GMT, "John Harlow" <[email protected]> wrote:

    . . .> > Mike argues that since "force (f)= mass (m) x acceleration (a)" a larger .> > mass will
    create more force. This is true in itself, its obvious. .> > .> > However mike then says that the
    acceleration (a) is gravity. This is .where .> > he has shown no understanding of advanced physics.
    .> > .> > If we let him have the fact that (a) is indeed gravity we all know that .> > acceleration
    due to gravity is constant regardless of mass. In other .words a .> > bike and a hiker both will
    accelerate at the same speed due to gravity .when .> > in a free fall situation. .> > .> > Therefore
    it can be seen that mike is very confused with regards to .physics .> > and has a tendency to change
    his argument when cornered. .> .> Ok, my physics isn't that good, I'll play. .> .> If you're taking
    F=MA and A is a constant (9.8 m/s), then surely force .> is directionally proportional mass? .
    .Shock Absorbers work by converting a high force short duration impact into a .lower force long
    duration impact.

    BS. You can't "lower" the force of gravity. The bike may bounce, but eventually it has to hit the
    ground, with the full force of gravity. PLUS its momentum.

    Without a shock absorber, the peak impact .force is far greater than with one, but for a shorter
    time period. This .high peak shock impact is the principle which jackhammers use to destroy
    .concrete; a jackhammer with a shock absorber would be ineffective. . .Specifically;
    . Force .(Shock Absorber)
    .Decelleration g's (in
    gravitational units)
    . -----------------------------------
    . Impact .weight (Shock Absorber) .
    .So, one can see by increasing the
    impact weight *of the shock
    absorber* the .number of g's are
    reduced. . .Effective Impact weight
    (We) can be expressed as: .
    . 5.36 Fd S .We = --------
    . V^2 . .where Fd is Drive force (rider weight in lbs), S is Shock Absorber stroke
    .length (inches), and V is Linear Velocity of the impact of the Shock .Absorber
    (ft/sec) . .Therefore, either a longer stroke or lower rider weight will reduce G
    forces .to the wheel. A hardtail (zero stroke length) has the highest impact
    .force. . . .

    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to
    help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
  20. On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:48:46 +0200, bomba <[email protected]> wrote:

    .Simon wrote: . .> | If you're taking F=MA and A is a constant (9.8 m/s), then surely force .> | is
    directionally proportional mass? .> | .> I am not talking that at all. Mike is and thats why he is
    wrong and his .> knowledge is flawed. He is trying to substitute incorrect sections within .>
    standard equations. . .You've totally lost me. Are you now saying that A can not be replaced .with
    gravity? . .I haven't read any of Mike's posts on this subject, but your post seems .totally wrong,
    and justifies Mike's position. I can't see anything .wrong with asserting that extra weight leads to
    more force. It's a .simplistic view, but it stands up to (my knowledge of) the laws of physics.

    Careful, mountain bikers can't take too much reality....
    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to
    help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...