Re: Analytical Nonsense



Tom Kunich wrote:
> "MagillaGorilla" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> I do find it interesting that you don't understand gyroscopic
>>> precession and how it applies to a wheel.
>>
>>
>> I see no measurable influence of this phenonmenon related to a bicycle
>> wheel in a velodrome turn. I like how you just throw the term out
>> there and expect people to make the link when it's obvious you can't
>> even articulate one yourself.
>
>
> Thanks for admitting that you have no idea what's being referenced.
>


Gryoscopic precession is a very very weak force with respect to a
spinning bicycle wheel. You may as well talk about the gravity of the
moon as it relates to a velodrome turn (the moon's gravity in fact does
affect a rider on a velodrome, but most people are smart enough to
realize it's negligible so they don't mention it at all).


Magilla
 
[email protected] wrote:

> On Dec 4, 7:08 pm, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>
>> MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Remove a wheel and hold it perpendicular to the ground (the same as if
>>>it were mounted on your bike). Spin it as fast as you can and then
>>>suddenly bank the wheel at a 40-degree angle. That tremndous resistance
>>>you feel is a negative effect that increases with the speed of your
>>>wheel and only exists in a turn and serves to bleed energy along with
>>>friction, increased rolling resistance, and negative physiological
>>>effects (both circulatory and vertigo).
>>
>>Once again, force perpendicular to the velocity does no work.
>>Study dynamics. Do not lecture those who know.
>>
>>What you write is cargo cult physics. You know nothing.
>>You string words and phrases dropped by those who know
>>into bright plausible spangly icons of the original.
>>You know nothing. Those who give you the benefit of
>>the doubt can interpret some of your constructions as
>>being sort of true in a good light with a following wind.
>>The big giveaway is that you cannot discriminate what
>>is true in the replies you get.
>>
>>--
>>Michael Press
>
>
> Thanks Mike, I could not have answered like this myself. Closest I was
> to Oxford was driving by, once.
> In my last reply to Magilla, which did not show up here, I was trying
> to explain the acceleration when entering turn comparing it to
> piruette balet dancers or figure skaters can perform by pulling arms
> in. Corellis (?) effect, I think it was called.
> It is practically negligible riding on velodrome, riders are more
> likely to feel slightly higher pedaling rpms, but only on small
> tracks. I don't want to get into explaining that, now.
> Peter Junek


The Coriolis effect has absolutely nothing to do with anything that
happens on a velodrome. And the figure skater effect has little
correlation to what happens in a velodrome turn because the rider is not
tethered to a stake in the middle of the velodrome.

A figure skater spins faster as they bring their arms inward because of
the laws of conservation of angular momentum. So as you bring more mass
in towards the cetner of torque, energy is mmostly conserved so it
results in a faster spin.

In cycling around a velodrome turn, you are constantly changing your
angular momentum, which requires a force. In a straight-away you are
CONSERVING your LINEAR momentum.

I agree that the center of mass argument would result in a faster tire
travel speed IF YOU ISOLATE THIS VARIABLE. However, in a turn, this is
not the only thing that is occurring.

In order to change a rider's linear inertia, it requires a force. That
force comes from the velodrome turn and the rider's lean and physical
inputs. All of these things result in increased friction, increased
rolling resistance, negative physiological effects, increased
aerodynamic drag.

When you crunch all the math - which we have yet to do - it's gonna show
a turn has a net inefficiency which results in not only a decreased
speed, but a decrease in watts. And that lost energy is converted to
heat in the form of friction.

On a straightaway you have no similar energy loss, no increased
aerodynamic loss, no physiological negatives.

Believe it or not, calling me names isn't going to change any of this.


Magilla
 
In article <[email protected]>,
MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:

> On a straightaway you have no similar energy loss, no increased
> aerodynamic loss, no physiological negatives.

Considering all the time you and I have been on velodromes - have you
ever ridden one that had a FLAT straightaway?

Mike G.
-
 
"Mike G" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On a straightaway you have no similar energy loss, no increased
>> aerodynamic loss, no physiological negatives.
>
> Considering all the time you and I have been on velodromes - have you
> ever ridden one that had a FLAT straightaway?
>
> Mike G.
> -

Skinner Park, San Fernando, Trinidad
 
Michael Press wrote:
> "The Dutch government is reportedly unhappy with the circulation of a
> photo of the prince and his wife at the Apple Store (seen below), and is
> currently asking Dutch websites to take them down."
>
> What's that all about?

The House of Orange shouldn't be seen buying apples ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Re: Analytical Nonsense
Replies
0
Views
396
Road Cycling
sergio
S
W
Re: Analytical Nonsense
Replies
0
Views
236
Road Cycling
William Asher
W
A
Re: Analytical Nonsense
Replies
0
Views
385
Road Cycling
Andy Coggan
A
M
Re: Analytical Nonsense
Replies
0
Views
305
Road Cycling
Michael Press
M
B
Re: Analytical Nonsense
Replies
0
Views
260
Road Cycling
Bob Schwartz
B
Top Bottom Back