S
Slacker
Guest
> Every action has an equal and opposite reaction? Terri Alvillar
You mean....like your hair, you nappy headed fool?
--
Slacker
You mean....like your hair, you nappy headed fool?
--
Slacker
- Status
M
Mike Vandeman
Guest
On Fri, 04 Apr 2003 20:17:39 GMT, "Michael Paul" <[email protected]> wrote:
. ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news:[email protected]... .> On 3 Apr 2003 21:30:56 -0800,
[email protected] (Terri Alvillar) wrote: .> .> .I wonder if any studies have been done to correlate
mountain bike .> .equipment shock absorbers and suspension with damage to terrain? Is .> .the damage
to terrain commensurate with the level of shock absorbing .> .technology on the vehicle? .> .> Yes.
By Newton's laws of physics, every action has an equal and opposite .> reaction. In other words, the
force applied to the ground (or anything .else in .> their path, such as a plant, animal, or person)
is identical to the force .> applied to the bike. The reason that mountain bikes are built much
.stronger than .> normal bikes is that they encounter much greater FORCES. Therefore, they .apply .>
much greater forces to the ground & everything else in their path. QED . .The fact that a mountain
bike is built "much stronger" than a normal bike .has nothing to do with your claim that they apply
a much greater force to .the ground. If I'm riding my bike along a paved road, I put the SAME EXACT
.FORCE on the road whether I'm on my road bike (much lighter than my MTB),
You inadvertently demonstrated your pathetic understanding of physics. Greater weight IS greater
force. DUH!
my .Mountain bike, or my three year old neighbor's training bike. Force, is .force, is force. The
only force while riding along is gravity and in our .world, gravity, last time I checked, does not
magically get stronger when .one rides a mountain bike.
Yes, it does. The heavier you are, the greater your force in the ground. DUH!
.Now, I will grant you that performing jumps and other stunts do put higher .loads on the frame than
when simply riding along but if you're going to .start making claims, at least make the right claims
you mental midget.
Projecting?
.Michael .
===
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
. ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news:[email protected]... .> On 3 Apr 2003 21:30:56 -0800,
[email protected] (Terri Alvillar) wrote: .> .> .I wonder if any studies have been done to correlate
mountain bike .> .equipment shock absorbers and suspension with damage to terrain? Is .> .the damage
to terrain commensurate with the level of shock absorbing .> .technology on the vehicle? .> .> Yes.
By Newton's laws of physics, every action has an equal and opposite .> reaction. In other words, the
force applied to the ground (or anything .else in .> their path, such as a plant, animal, or person)
is identical to the force .> applied to the bike. The reason that mountain bikes are built much
.stronger than .> normal bikes is that they encounter much greater FORCES. Therefore, they .apply .>
much greater forces to the ground & everything else in their path. QED . .The fact that a mountain
bike is built "much stronger" than a normal bike .has nothing to do with your claim that they apply
a much greater force to .the ground. If I'm riding my bike along a paved road, I put the SAME EXACT
.FORCE on the road whether I'm on my road bike (much lighter than my MTB),
You inadvertently demonstrated your pathetic understanding of physics. Greater weight IS greater
force. DUH!
my .Mountain bike, or my three year old neighbor's training bike. Force, is .force, is force. The
only force while riding along is gravity and in our .world, gravity, last time I checked, does not
magically get stronger when .one rides a mountain bike.
Yes, it does. The heavier you are, the greater your force in the ground. DUH!
.Now, I will grant you that performing jumps and other stunts do put higher .loads on the frame than
when simply riding along but if you're going to .start making claims, at least make the right claims
you mental midget.
Projecting?
.Michael .
===
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
M
Mike Vandeman
Guest
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 14:43:05 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:
."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news:[email protected]... .> On 3 Apr 2003 21:30:56 -0800,
[email protected] (Terri Alvillar) wrote: .> .> .I wonder if any studies have been done to correlate
mountain bike .> .equipment shock absorbers and suspension with damage to terrain? Is .> .the damage
to terrain commensurate with the level of shock absorbing .> .technology on the vehicle? .> .> Yes.
By Newton's laws of physics, every action has an equal and opposite .> reaction. In other words, the
force applied to the ground (or anything .else in .> their path, such as a plant, animal, or person)
is identical to the force .> applied to the bike. The reason that mountain bikes are built much
.stronger than .> normal bikes is that they encounter much greater FORCES. Therefore, they .apply .>
much greater forces to the ground & everything else in their path. QED . .Technically, a mountain
bike with a shock absorber should have less of an .impact than one without a shock absorber. Think
of the words being used .here, SHOCK ABSORBER. A shock absorber absorbs shocks, therefore by
.definition, less of an impact. . .Think of the water barrels they (CalTrans or others) place on the
.impact-side of a sign or post. The sign or post might weigh more, but the .impact upon objects that
strike the sign or post is lessened. In the world .of bikes and dirt, the dirt is the object that
constantly stirkes the bike .(trying to keep the analogy straight), or in other words, the impact of
the .bike striking the ground repeatedly is lessened because of the shock .absorber. Newton's Law
does not take into account the affects of external .forces, such as a shock absorber.
Oh sure. Newton's laws don't apply to mountain bikes. That is the funniest thing I have heard in a
long time! Idiot.
===
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
."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news:[email protected]... .> On 3 Apr 2003 21:30:56 -0800,
[email protected] (Terri Alvillar) wrote: .> .> .I wonder if any studies have been done to correlate
mountain bike .> .equipment shock absorbers and suspension with damage to terrain? Is .> .the damage
to terrain commensurate with the level of shock absorbing .> .technology on the vehicle? .> .> Yes.
By Newton's laws of physics, every action has an equal and opposite .> reaction. In other words, the
force applied to the ground (or anything .else in .> their path, such as a plant, animal, or person)
is identical to the force .> applied to the bike. The reason that mountain bikes are built much
.stronger than .> normal bikes is that they encounter much greater FORCES. Therefore, they .apply .>
much greater forces to the ground & everything else in their path. QED . .Technically, a mountain
bike with a shock absorber should have less of an .impact than one without a shock absorber. Think
of the words being used .here, SHOCK ABSORBER. A shock absorber absorbs shocks, therefore by
.definition, less of an impact. . .Think of the water barrels they (CalTrans or others) place on the
.impact-side of a sign or post. The sign or post might weigh more, but the .impact upon objects that
strike the sign or post is lessened. In the world .of bikes and dirt, the dirt is the object that
constantly stirkes the bike .(trying to keep the analogy straight), or in other words, the impact of
the .bike striking the ground repeatedly is lessened because of the shock .absorber. Newton's Law
does not take into account the affects of external .forces, such as a shock absorber.
Oh sure. Newton's laws don't apply to mountain bikes. That is the funniest thing I have heard in a
long time! Idiot.
===
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
M
Mike Vandeman
Guest
On Fri, 04 Apr 2003 20:09:07 GMT, "Michael Paul" <[email protected]> wrote:
. ."Terri Alvillar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news:[email protected]... .> [email protected] (Terri Alvillar) wrote
in message .news:<[email protected]>... .> > I wonder if any studies
have been done to correlate mountain bike .> > equipment shock absorbers and suspension with damage
to terrain? Is .> > the damage to terrain commensurate with the level of shock absorbing .> >
technology on the vehicle? .> > Terri Alvillar .> .> .> Every action has an equal and opposite
reaction? . .Therefore a 225 pound hiker imparts more force and to the trail than a 115 .pound
cyclist with or without suspension. . .quick physics lesson for you. every action does have an equal
and opposit .reaction. That means that a 150 pound rider on a hardtail imparts the same .force on
the trail (and the trail exerts teh same force on the bike, hence .the equal and opposite reaction
part of Newton's law) as a 150 pound rider .with suspension on a bike of the same weight. If you'd
do the research, .you'd find that many full supsension bikes weigh within a few pounds on .either
side of many of hte non susspended bikes so a direct domparision is .valid. That same 150 pound
person is exerting a force on the ground with .every step he/she takes when not biking. Force is
force. Suspension has .nothing to do with it. . .Now, if the suspension were actually storing energy
(which it most certainly .is not) and spring loading the bike, then a greater force would be applied
.to the ground but the only force at work here is gravity regardless of .suspension. . .Physics 101.
get the Cliff Notes
You just flunked. You forgot about MOMENTUM. If gravity is the only force, how to you go up a hill?
And how can you kill a hiker while ruding on a LEVEL trail? 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
. ."Terri Alvillar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news:[email protected]... .> [email protected] (Terri Alvillar) wrote
in message .news:<[email protected]>... .> > I wonder if any studies
have been done to correlate mountain bike .> > equipment shock absorbers and suspension with damage
to terrain? Is .> > the damage to terrain commensurate with the level of shock absorbing .> >
technology on the vehicle? .> > Terri Alvillar .> .> .> Every action has an equal and opposite
reaction? . .Therefore a 225 pound hiker imparts more force and to the trail than a 115 .pound
cyclist with or without suspension. . .quick physics lesson for you. every action does have an equal
and opposit .reaction. That means that a 150 pound rider on a hardtail imparts the same .force on
the trail (and the trail exerts teh same force on the bike, hence .the equal and opposite reaction
part of Newton's law) as a 150 pound rider .with suspension on a bike of the same weight. If you'd
do the research, .you'd find that many full supsension bikes weigh within a few pounds on .either
side of many of hte non susspended bikes so a direct domparision is .valid. That same 150 pound
person is exerting a force on the ground with .every step he/she takes when not biking. Force is
force. Suspension has .nothing to do with it. . .Now, if the suspension were actually storing energy
(which it most certainly .is not) and spring loading the bike, then a greater force would be applied
.to the ground but the only force at work here is gravity regardless of .suspension. . .Physics 101.
get the Cliff Notes
You just flunked. You forgot about MOMENTUM. If gravity is the only force, how to you go up a hill?
And how can you kill a hiker while ruding on a LEVEL trail? 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
M
Mike Vandeman
Guest
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 20:15:19 +0100, "Simon" <[email protected]> wrote:
. ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news
[email protected]... .| On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 13:42:31 +0100, "Simon"
<[email protected]> .| wrote: .| .| . .| ."Stephen Baker" <[email protected]>
wrote in message .| .news:[email protected]... .| .| Terri says: .| .| .|
.| >I wonder if any studies have been done to correlate mountain bike .| .| >equipment shock
absorbers and suspension with damage to terrain? .| .| .| .| I think you'll find that the more shock
absorption, the less damage. .You .| .| might want to try a road-building website for info on that,
as I'm sure .| .the .| .| study has been done for cars at some point. .| .| Either way, you're just
going to find that the more gonzo riders have .more .| .| cush, and therefore do less damage on the
same line. Kinda ironic, no? .| .| .| .| Steve .| . .| .Up to a point I am sure that is correct. .|
. .| .However, if you look at north shore and all the trends to build these .masses .| .of wooden
structures via cutting down local trees etc... They are built .| .mainly by people with full
suspension bikes. Is this not trail damamage? .| . .| .I am not against this just wanted to point it
out. .| .| So your email about teaching people to protect the environment was all a .LIE, .| eh? You
guys are transparent! .| .| .Simon .| . .| .| === .| 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 . .Mr Vandeman a name
now synonymous with spamming newsgroups (google search). .I teach climbing for a living as well as
running a web design company (that .you yourself told me was shite).
It is ****. Just look at your pathetic, user-hostile web site!
Part of teaching climbing, as any climber .knows, is educating students upon environmental issues.
.As a recent example I got some students to take a look at your web site and .give comments. The
results were far from favourable.
You are supposed to be telling them the truth, not feeding them pro-mountain biking propaganda. How
old are they? 5? 6?
Environmental .campaigners are welcome within this world however people that have turned
.themselves mad with it are more of a hindrance. After searching some of the .environmental
newsgroups you post to I learnt you are not even welcome .there! .As your website says....... you
travelled to Japan (via aeroplane I presume) .to talk on the impact we have on this planet etc.
Like I pointed out you .used an aeroplane that causes more pollution and environmental damage than
a .few mountain bikers.
Not my small impact. Idiot.
.::...Your response was that its okay to use that which is already in .place...:: . .ergo my
mountainbiking on trails already in place is totally fine
BS. You just revealed your ignorance of the environmental impact of mountain biking.
and like .most here we look after these trails.........do you look after the paths you .walk on? .
.So I am not a liar as you put it, although if it allows you to condemn me in .your eyes then feel
free to assume I am nothing more than a destructive ape.
You lied by omission, by not admitting that you are a mountain biker.
.Simon...........you are the transparent, hypocritical liar Mr. Vandeman . .PS. apologies to those
that detest responses to this person.
You love to apologize, but you never mean 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
. ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news
[email protected]... .| On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 13:42:31 +0100, "Simon"<[email protected]> .| wrote: .| .| . .| ."Stephen Baker" <[email protected]>
wrote in message .| .news:[email protected]... .| .| Terri says: .| .| .|
.| >I wonder if any studies have been done to correlate mountain bike .| .| >equipment shock
absorbers and suspension with damage to terrain? .| .| .| .| I think you'll find that the more shock
absorption, the less damage. .You .| .| might want to try a road-building website for info on that,
as I'm sure .| .the .| .| study has been done for cars at some point. .| .| Either way, you're just
going to find that the more gonzo riders have .more .| .| cush, and therefore do less damage on the
same line. Kinda ironic, no? .| .| .| .| Steve .| . .| .Up to a point I am sure that is correct. .|
. .| .However, if you look at north shore and all the trends to build these .masses .| .of wooden
structures via cutting down local trees etc... They are built .| .mainly by people with full
suspension bikes. Is this not trail damamage? .| . .| .I am not against this just wanted to point it
out. .| .| So your email about teaching people to protect the environment was all a .LIE, .| eh? You
guys are transparent! .| .| .Simon .| . .| .| === .| 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 . .Mr Vandeman a name
now synonymous with spamming newsgroups (google search). .I teach climbing for a living as well as
running a web design company (that .you yourself told me was shite).
It is ****. Just look at your pathetic, user-hostile web site!
Part of teaching climbing, as any climber .knows, is educating students upon environmental issues.
.As a recent example I got some students to take a look at your web site and .give comments. The
results were far from favourable.
You are supposed to be telling them the truth, not feeding them pro-mountain biking propaganda. How
old are they? 5? 6?
Environmental .campaigners are welcome within this world however people that have turned
.themselves mad with it are more of a hindrance. After searching some of the .environmental
newsgroups you post to I learnt you are not even welcome .there! .As your website says....... you
travelled to Japan (via aeroplane I presume) .to talk on the impact we have on this planet etc.
Like I pointed out you .used an aeroplane that causes more pollution and environmental damage than
a .few mountain bikers.
Not my small impact. Idiot.
.::...Your response was that its okay to use that which is already in .place...:: . .ergo my
mountainbiking on trails already in place is totally fine
BS. You just revealed your ignorance of the environmental impact of mountain biking.
and like .most here we look after these trails.........do you look after the paths you .walk on? .
.So I am not a liar as you put it, although if it allows you to condemn me in .your eyes then feel
free to assume I am nothing more than a destructive ape.
You lied by omission, by not admitting that you are a mountain biker.
.Simon...........you are the transparent, hypocritical liar Mr. Vandeman . .PS. apologies to those
that detest responses to this person.
You love to apologize, but you never mean 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
M
Mike Vandeman
Guest
On Fri, 04 Apr 2003 20:12:02 GMT, "Michael Paul" <[email protected]> wrote:
. ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news:[email protected]... .> On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 15:37:09 +0100, "Shaun
Rimmer" <[email protected]> .wrote: .> .> . .> .Terri Alvillar <[email protected]> wrote in
message .> .news:[email protected]... .> .> [email protected] (Terri
Alvillar) wrote in message .> .news:<[email protected]>... .> .> > I
wonder if any studies have been done to correlate mountain bike .> .> > equipment shock absorbers
and suspension with damage to terrain? Is .> .> > the damage to terrain commensurate with the level
of shock absorbing .> .> > technology on the vehicle? .> .> > Terri Alvillar .> .> .> .> .> .> Every
action has an equal and opposite reaction? .> .> Terri Alvillar .> . .> .Please, if you wish to take
this further, do study up on suspension .design, .> .action, and especially 'shock absorbers' - they
do just what it says, .that .> .is, 'absorb shock', not absorb it then dish it straight back out
into the .> .ground. .> .> BS. By the laws of physics, they HAVE to apply the force to the ground,
.unless .> they can FLY! .> .See above response to Terri's incorrect application of Newton's Law. As
an .alleged PhD, I'm sure you are at least familiar with the most basic of .Newton's principals, but
then again, one wonders who you had to sleep with .to obtain that alleged PhD. in the first place
because if your dissertaion .waswritten in the same tone and with the same apparent lack of
education .that you spew forth in here, I for one cannot see how it ever got past the .review board
on it's own merit.
Don't look at it. You wouldn't be able to understand it.
.And Hikers HAVE to apply a force to the gorund when they walk, unless they .can FLY!
Of course, only far less than mountain bikers.
.Duh! . .Michael . . .
===
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
. ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news:[email protected]... .> On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 15:37:09 +0100, "Shaun
Rimmer" <[email protected]> .wrote: .> .> . .> .Terri Alvillar <[email protected]> wrote in
message .> .news:[email protected]... .> .> [email protected] (Terri
Alvillar) wrote in message .> .news:<[email protected]>... .> .> > I
wonder if any studies have been done to correlate mountain bike .> .> > equipment shock absorbers
and suspension with damage to terrain? Is .> .> > the damage to terrain commensurate with the level
of shock absorbing .> .> > technology on the vehicle? .> .> > Terri Alvillar .> .> .> .> .> .> Every
action has an equal and opposite reaction? .> .> Terri Alvillar .> . .> .Please, if you wish to take
this further, do study up on suspension .design, .> .action, and especially 'shock absorbers' - they
do just what it says, .that .> .is, 'absorb shock', not absorb it then dish it straight back out
into the .> .ground. .> .> BS. By the laws of physics, they HAVE to apply the force to the ground,
.unless .> they can FLY! .> .See above response to Terri's incorrect application of Newton's Law. As
an .alleged PhD, I'm sure you are at least familiar with the most basic of .Newton's principals, but
then again, one wonders who you had to sleep with .to obtain that alleged PhD. in the first place
because if your dissertaion .waswritten in the same tone and with the same apparent lack of
education .that you spew forth in here, I for one cannot see how it ever got past the .review board
on it's own merit.
Don't look at it. You wouldn't be able to understand it.
.And Hikers HAVE to apply a force to the gorund when they walk, unless they .can FLY!
Of course, only far less than mountain bikers.
.Duh! . .Michael . . .
===
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
C
Corvus Corvax
Guest
"Michael Paul" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> Physics 101. get the Cliff Notes
Uh, try again. Mikey (within his limited perspective) is correct. Your physics is complete ********.
The force of the hiker and the biker on the trail is the same only if both are sitting still. The
biker is moving, and therefore will generally put much greater forces on the trail than a hiker.
Hitting a big bump at 20 mph will put great force on the bike (and therefore the ground), no?
All else being equal, suspension will mitigate this. Suspension reduces the acceleration on the
sprung weight, and therefore the force. Of course, all else is probably not equal, since a suspended
rider will probably be going faster. Not that it means anything. "A completely worthless thing to
think about," as Darsh puts it, is probably best. Force on the ground is a stupid way to measure
trail damage.
CC
>
> Physics 101. get the Cliff Notes
Uh, try again. Mikey (within his limited perspective) is correct. Your physics is complete ********.
The force of the hiker and the biker on the trail is the same only if both are sitting still. The
biker is moving, and therefore will generally put much greater forces on the trail than a hiker.
Hitting a big bump at 20 mph will put great force on the bike (and therefore the ground), no?
All else being equal, suspension will mitigate this. Suspension reduces the acceleration on the
sprung weight, and therefore the force. Of course, all else is probably not equal, since a suspended
rider will probably be going faster. Not that it means anything. "A completely worthless thing to
think about," as Darsh puts it, is probably best. Force on the ground is a stupid way to measure
trail damage.
CC
P
Peterh
Guest
Mike Vandeman wrote:
>You inadvertently demonstrated your pathetic understanding of physics. Greater weight IS greater
>force. DUH!
>
F=MA. Greater weight only exerts greater force if A remains constant or is also increased. Should A
decrease, then, all else being equal, F will decrease proportionately. Not only is your grasp of
physics wanting, but your lingusitic skills could use fine tuning also. You have a annoying
propensity for dumping a sematically null utterance at the ends of sentences.
>
> my .Mountain bike, or my three year old neighbor's training bike. Force, is .force, is force. The
> only force while riding along is gravity and in our .world, gravity, last time I checked, does not
> magically get stronger when .one rides a mountain bike.
>
>Yes, it does. The heavier you are, the greater your force in the ground. DUH!
>
>
>
>
The rider's weight has no correlation whatever with the bike's realtive sturdiness. You skipped from
the original point. And again your grasp of physics is less than deireable.
Pete H
--
Reforms come from below; no man with four aces asks for a redeal. anon.
>You inadvertently demonstrated your pathetic understanding of physics. Greater weight IS greater
>force. DUH!
>
F=MA. Greater weight only exerts greater force if A remains constant or is also increased. Should A
decrease, then, all else being equal, F will decrease proportionately. Not only is your grasp of
physics wanting, but your lingusitic skills could use fine tuning also. You have a annoying
propensity for dumping a sematically null utterance at the ends of sentences.
>
> my .Mountain bike, or my three year old neighbor's training bike. Force, is .force, is force. The
> only force while riding along is gravity and in our .world, gravity, last time I checked, does not
> magically get stronger when .one rides a mountain bike.
>
>Yes, it does. The heavier you are, the greater your force in the ground. DUH!
>
>
>
>
The rider's weight has no correlation whatever with the bike's realtive sturdiness. You skipped from
the original point. And again your grasp of physics is less than deireable.
Pete H
--
Reforms come from below; no man with four aces asks for a redeal. anon.
P
Peterh
Guest
Simon wrote:
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news[email protected]...
>| On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 13:42:31 +0100, "Simon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>|
>|
>
And he seldom if ever snips his replies; it's deucedly difficult keeping post & response separated.
But once this is achieved, the monomania stands out.
Pete H
--
Reforms come from below; no man with four aces asks for a redeal. anon.
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news
[email protected]...>| On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 13:42:31 +0100, "Simon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>|
>|
>
And he seldom if ever snips his replies; it's deucedly difficult keeping post & response separated.
But once this is achieved, the monomania stands out.
Pete H
--
Reforms come from below; no man with four aces asks for a redeal. anon.
P
Peterh
Guest
Jeff Strickland wrote:
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>
>>
It'll never work. You used the word "think."
Pete H
--
Reforms come from below; no man with four aces asks for a redeal. anon.
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>
>>
It'll never work. You used the word "think."
Pete H
--
Reforms come from below; no man with four aces asks for a redeal. anon.
P
Peterh
Guest
Mike Vandeman wrote:
> Newton's Law does not take into account the affects of external .forces, such as a shock absorber.
>
>Oh sure. Newton's laws don't apply to mountain bikes. That is the funniest thing I have heard in a
>long time! Idiot.
>
>
>
He said "shock absorbers," you are the one trying to equate unequal things.
Pete H
--
Reforms come from below; no man with four aces asks for a redeal. anon.
> Newton's Law does not take into account the affects of external .forces, such as a shock absorber.
>
>Oh sure. Newton's laws don't apply to mountain bikes. That is the funniest thing I have heard in a
>long time! Idiot.
>
>
>
He said "shock absorbers," you are the one trying to equate unequal things.
Pete H
--
Reforms come from below; no man with four aces asks for a redeal. anon.
S
Simon
Guest
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]... <snip>
|
| .And Hikers HAVE to apply a force to the gorund when they walk, unless
they
| .can FLY!
|
| Of course, only far less than mountain bikers.
So its okay to cause trail damage as long as its less than mountainbikers. Isnt that what you have
just said?
Simon.........would love to read MV's dissertation.........and yes I would understand it.
news:[email protected]... <snip>
|
| .And Hikers HAVE to apply a force to the gorund when they walk, unless
they
| .can FLY!
|
| Of course, only far less than mountain bikers.
So its okay to cause trail damage as long as its less than mountainbikers. Isnt that what you have
just said?
Simon.........would love to read MV's dissertation.........and yes I would understand it.
R
Ricardo Montalb
Guest
.Hey .Mike, .your .web .site .is .just .a .bunch .of .shitty .centered .html. .you .have .no
.business ...criticizing .other .peoples .websites.
.in .addition .please .get .yourself .castrated .by .a . .bad .big .bad .mountain .bike .they .tear
.up .your .nuts
Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 20:15:19 +0100, "Simon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> . ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news[email protected]... .| On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 13:42:31 +0100, "Simon"
> <[email protected]> .| wrote: .| .| . .| ."Stephen Baker" <[email protected]>
> wrote in message .| .news:[email protected]... .| .| Terri says: .| .|
> .| .| >I wonder if any studies have been done to correlate mountain bike .| .| >equipment shock
> absorbers and suspension with damage to terrain? .| .| .| .| I think you'll find that the more
> shock absorption, the less damage. .You .| .| might want to try a road-building website for info
> on that, as I'm sure .| .the .| .| study has been done for cars at some point. .| .| Either way,
> you're just going to find that the more gonzo riders have .more .| .| cush, and therefore do less
> damage on the same line. Kinda ironic, no? .| .| .| .| Steve .| . .| .Up to a point I am sure that
> is correct. .| . .| .However, if you look at north shore and all the trends to build these .masses
> .| .of wooden structures via cutting down local trees etc... They are built .| .mainly by people
> with full suspension bikes. Is this not trail damamage? .| . .| .I am not against this just wanted
> to point it out. .| .| So your email about teaching people to protect the environment was all
> a .LIE, .| eh? You guys are transparent! .| .| .Simon .| . .| .| === .| 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 . .Mr Vandeman a name now synonymous with spamming newsgroups
> (google search). .I teach climbing for a living as well as running a web design company (that
> .you yourself told me was shite).
>
> It is ****. Just look at your pathetic, user-hostile web site!
>
> Part of teaching climbing, as any climber .knows, is educating students upon environmental
> issues. .As a recent example I got some students to take a look at your web site and .give
> comments. The results were far from favourable.
>
> You are supposed to be telling them the truth, not feeding them pro-mountain biking propaganda.
> How old are they? 5? 6?
>
> Environmental .campaigners are welcome within this world however people that have turned
> .themselves mad with it are more of a hindrance. After searching some of the .environmental
> newsgroups you post to I learnt you are not even welcome .there! .As your website says....... you
> travelled to Japan (via aeroplane I presume) .to talk on the impact we have on this planet etc.
> Like I pointed out you .used an aeroplane that causes more pollution and environmental damage
> than a .few mountain bikers.
>
> Not my small impact. Idiot.
>
> .::...Your response was that its okay to use that which is already in .place...:: . .ergo my
> mountainbiking on trails already in place is totally fine
>
> BS. You just revealed your ignorance of the environmental impact of mountain biking.
>
> and like .most here we look after these trails.........do you look after the paths you .walk on? .
> .So I am not a liar as you put it, although if it allows you to condemn me
> in .your eyes then feel free to assume I am nothing more than a destructive ape.
>
> You lied by omission, by not admitting that you are a mountain biker.
>
> .Simon...........you are the transparent, hypocritical liar Mr. Vandeman . .PS. apologies to those
> that detest responses to this person.
>
> You love to apologize, but you never mean 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
--
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
.business ...criticizing .other .peoples .websites.
.in .addition .please .get .yourself .castrated .by .a . .bad .big .bad .mountain .bike .they .tear
.up .your .nuts
Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 20:15:19 +0100, "Simon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> . ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news
[email protected]... .| On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 13:42:31 +0100, "Simon"> <[email protected]> .| wrote: .| .| . .| ."Stephen Baker" <[email protected]>
> wrote in message .| .news:[email protected]... .| .| Terri says: .| .|
> .| .| >I wonder if any studies have been done to correlate mountain bike .| .| >equipment shock
> absorbers and suspension with damage to terrain? .| .| .| .| I think you'll find that the more
> shock absorption, the less damage. .You .| .| might want to try a road-building website for info
> on that, as I'm sure .| .the .| .| study has been done for cars at some point. .| .| Either way,
> you're just going to find that the more gonzo riders have .more .| .| cush, and therefore do less
> damage on the same line. Kinda ironic, no? .| .| .| .| Steve .| . .| .Up to a point I am sure that
> is correct. .| . .| .However, if you look at north shore and all the trends to build these .masses
> .| .of wooden structures via cutting down local trees etc... They are built .| .mainly by people
> with full suspension bikes. Is this not trail damamage? .| . .| .I am not against this just wanted
> to point it out. .| .| So your email about teaching people to protect the environment was all
> a .LIE, .| eh? You guys are transparent! .| .| .Simon .| . .| .| === .| 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 . .Mr Vandeman a name now synonymous with spamming newsgroups
> (google search). .I teach climbing for a living as well as running a web design company (that
> .you yourself told me was shite).
>
> It is ****. Just look at your pathetic, user-hostile web site!
>
> Part of teaching climbing, as any climber .knows, is educating students upon environmental
> issues. .As a recent example I got some students to take a look at your web site and .give
> comments. The results were far from favourable.
>
> You are supposed to be telling them the truth, not feeding them pro-mountain biking propaganda.
> How old are they? 5? 6?
>
> Environmental .campaigners are welcome within this world however people that have turned
> .themselves mad with it are more of a hindrance. After searching some of the .environmental
> newsgroups you post to I learnt you are not even welcome .there! .As your website says....... you
> travelled to Japan (via aeroplane I presume) .to talk on the impact we have on this planet etc.
> Like I pointed out you .used an aeroplane that causes more pollution and environmental damage
> than a .few mountain bikers.
>
> Not my small impact. Idiot.
>
> .::...Your response was that its okay to use that which is already in .place...:: . .ergo my
> mountainbiking on trails already in place is totally fine
>
> BS. You just revealed your ignorance of the environmental impact of mountain biking.
>
> and like .most here we look after these trails.........do you look after the paths you .walk on? .
> .So I am not a liar as you put it, although if it allows you to condemn me
> in .your eyes then feel free to assume I am nothing more than a destructive ape.
>
> You lied by omission, by not admitting that you are a mountain biker.
>
> .Simon...........you are the transparent, hypocritical liar Mr. Vandeman . .PS. apologies to those
> that detest responses to this person.
>
> You love to apologize, but you never mean 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
--
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
S
Simon
Guest
<snip>
http://www.warriorssociety.org/Newsletters/1202_Dec/1202_P_6.htm
http://www.ahamo.net/newsletterAug02.html
I wont say any more. Its been said enough already.
Simon..........open your mind and see it from all directions.
http://www.warriorssociety.org/Newsletters/1202_Dec/1202_P_6.htm
http://www.ahamo.net/newsletterAug02.html
I wont say any more. Its been said enough already.
Simon..........open your mind and see it from all directions.
C
Canisterman
Guest
Damn, now I have to create another filter for this junk... Quit answering this guy... HE DOESN"T
CARE ABOUT YOUR OPINION. don't bother answering this post has been filterd to the garbage can. "Jeff
Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> You are more full of **** than a Christmas Turkey.
CARE ABOUT YOUR OPINION. don't bother answering this post has been filterd to the garbage can. "Jeff
Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> You are more full of **** than a Christmas Turkey.
W
Westie
Guest
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 09:38:41 -0500, "Michael Dart" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> . ."Simon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]... .> .> "Stephen Baker"
> <[email protected]> wrote in message .> news:[email protected]...
> .> | Terri says: .> | .> | >I wonder if any studies have been done to correlate mountain bike .> |
> >equipment shock absorbers and suspension with damage to terrain? .> | .> | I think you'll find
> that the more shock absorption, the less damage. .You .> | might want to try a road-building
> website for info on that, as I'm
sure
> .> the .> | study has been done for cars at some point. .> | Either way, you're just going to find
> that the more gonzo riders have .more .> | cush, and therefore do less damage on the same line.
> Kinda ironic,
no?
> .> | .> | Steve .> .> Up to a point I am sure that is correct. .> .> However, if you look at north
> shore and all the trends to build these .masses .> of wooden structures via cutting down local
> trees etc... They are built .> mainly by people with full suspension bikes. Is this not trail
damamage?
> .> .> I am not against this just wanted to point it out. .> .> Simon .> .> . .My understanding of
> the North Shore it is in a rainforest and the wooden .structures carry riders over the muddy
> forest floor. There is a ready .supply of fallen cedar trees that split well into slats for
> bridges and .resist rotting in the wet weather. Ok, so they got a little carried away .with them
> but for the most part they actually prevent erosion.
>
> BS. NOT MOUNTAINM BIKING is the way to prevent erosion. DUH!
>
> .Mike
Would you agree that not tramping in this muddy forest floor is also a way to avoid erosion
or damage?
--
Westie
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 09:38:41 -0500, "Michael Dart" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> . ."Simon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]... .> .> "Stephen Baker"
> <[email protected]> wrote in message .> news:[email protected]...
> .> | Terri says: .> | .> | >I wonder if any studies have been done to correlate mountain bike .> |
> >equipment shock absorbers and suspension with damage to terrain? .> | .> | I think you'll find
> that the more shock absorption, the less damage. .You .> | might want to try a road-building
> website for info on that, as I'm
sure
> .> the .> | study has been done for cars at some point. .> | Either way, you're just going to find
> that the more gonzo riders have .more .> | cush, and therefore do less damage on the same line.
> Kinda ironic,
no?
> .> | .> | Steve .> .> Up to a point I am sure that is correct. .> .> However, if you look at north
> shore and all the trends to build these .masses .> of wooden structures via cutting down local
> trees etc... They are built .> mainly by people with full suspension bikes. Is this not trail
damamage?
> .> .> I am not against this just wanted to point it out. .> .> Simon .> .> . .My understanding of
> the North Shore it is in a rainforest and the wooden .structures carry riders over the muddy
> forest floor. There is a ready .supply of fallen cedar trees that split well into slats for
> bridges and .resist rotting in the wet weather. Ok, so they got a little carried away .with them
> but for the most part they actually prevent erosion.
>
> BS. NOT MOUNTAINM BIKING is the way to prevent erosion. DUH!
>
> .Mike
Would you agree that not tramping in this muddy forest floor is also a way to avoid erosion
or damage?
--
Westie
W
Westie
Guest
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 15:37:09 +0100, "Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> . .Terri Alvillar <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]... .> [email protected] (Terri Alvillar)
> wrote in message .news:<[email protected]>... .> > I wonder if any
> studies have been done to correlate mountain bike .> > equipment shock absorbers and suspension
> with damage to terrain? Is .> > the damage to terrain commensurate with the level of shock
> absorbing .> > technology on the vehicle? .> > Terri Alvillar .> .> .> Every action has an equal
> and opposite reaction? .> Terri Alvillar . .Please, if you wish to take this further, do study up
> on suspension
design,
> .action, and especially 'shock absorbers' - they do just what it says,
that
> .is, 'absorb shock', not absorb it then dish it straight back out into the .ground.
>
> BS. By the laws of physics, they HAVE to apply the force to the ground,
unless
> they can FLY!
And since you know so much about physics, you will realise that the compression and rebound of the
suspension spreads the forces involved out over a longer period of time (and thereby a longer piece
of trail). The result is that a short, sharp jolt on a tiny piece of trail becomes a more gentle
pressure over a longer period of time over a longer piece of trail. Like hitting something with a
big pillow instead of a hammer. Anyway, what's your point?
--
Westie
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 15:37:09 +0100, "Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> . .Terri Alvillar <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]... .> [email protected] (Terri Alvillar)
> wrote in message .news:<[email protected]>... .> > I wonder if any
> studies have been done to correlate mountain bike .> > equipment shock absorbers and suspension
> with damage to terrain? Is .> > the damage to terrain commensurate with the level of shock
> absorbing .> > technology on the vehicle? .> > Terri Alvillar .> .> .> Every action has an equal
> and opposite reaction? .> Terri Alvillar . .Please, if you wish to take this further, do study up
> on suspension
design,
> .action, and especially 'shock absorbers' - they do just what it says,
that
> .is, 'absorb shock', not absorb it then dish it straight back out into the .ground.
>
> BS. By the laws of physics, they HAVE to apply the force to the ground,
unless
> they can FLY!
And since you know so much about physics, you will realise that the compression and rebound of the
suspension spreads the forces involved out over a longer period of time (and thereby a longer piece
of trail). The result is that a short, sharp jolt on a tiny piece of trail becomes a more gentle
pressure over a longer period of time over a longer piece of trail. Like hitting something with a
big pillow instead of a hammer. Anyway, what's your point?
--
Westie
M
Mike Vandeman
Guest
On 4 Apr 2003 23:21:23 -0800, [email protected] (Corvus Corvax) wrote:
."Michael Paul" <[email protected]> wrote .> .> Physics 101. get the Cliff Notes . .Uh, try again.
Mikey (within his limited perspective) is correct. Your .physics is complete ********.
True.
.The force of the hiker and the biker on the trail is the same only if .both are sitting still. The
biker is moving, and therefore will .generally put much greater forces on the trail than a hiker.
Hitting a .big bump at 20 mph will put great force on the bike (and therefore the .ground), no? .
.All else being equal, suspension will mitigate this.
Where do you see "mitigate" in Newton's laws? The suspension may change the force profile across
time, but the full force of the bike + rider's weight, PLUS any downward momentum from the way it is
ridden, will eventually land on the trail. Otherwise, with enough "suspension", an automobile's
effect on someone being driven over could be "mitigated" enough to be harmless, no?
Suspension .reduces the acceleration on the sprung weight, and therefore the .force. Of course, all
else is probably not equal, since a suspended .rider will probably be going faster. .Not that it
means anything. "A completely worthless thing to think .about," as Darsh puts it, is probably best.
Force on the ground is a .stupid way to measure trail damage.
Wrong. That is the most relevant factor.
.CC
===
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
."Michael Paul" <[email protected]> wrote .> .> Physics 101. get the Cliff Notes . .Uh, try again.
Mikey (within his limited perspective) is correct. Your .physics is complete ********.
True.
.The force of the hiker and the biker on the trail is the same only if .both are sitting still. The
biker is moving, and therefore will .generally put much greater forces on the trail than a hiker.
Hitting a .big bump at 20 mph will put great force on the bike (and therefore the .ground), no? .
.All else being equal, suspension will mitigate this.
Where do you see "mitigate" in Newton's laws? The suspension may change the force profile across
time, but the full force of the bike + rider's weight, PLUS any downward momentum from the way it is
ridden, will eventually land on the trail. Otherwise, with enough "suspension", an automobile's
effect on someone being driven over could be "mitigated" enough to be harmless, no?
Suspension .reduces the acceleration on the sprung weight, and therefore the .force. Of course, all
else is probably not equal, since a suspended .rider will probably be going faster. .Not that it
means anything. "A completely worthless thing to think .about," as Darsh puts it, is probably best.
Force on the ground is a .stupid way to measure trail damage.
Wrong. That is the most relevant factor.
.CC
===
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
W
Westie
Guest
"Michael Paul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]... <snip>
> > >
> >
> > It is storing it for brief periods of time. When the spring/air is compressed, energy is stored
> > ( U = k x^2 ). However, damped suspension results in the force being spread over a long period
> > of time - thus, a smaller impulse, and less force to any one part of the trail. The overall
> > total is the same, but it spreads out the high pressures a bit. And then there are the
> > frictional losses, but those aren't usually too much of a big deal on bikes... unless you're
> > running Judy's
> >
> > Jon Bond
>
> That's the advanced class
I was going to say the same thing but you said it better. ;-)
--
Westie
news:[email protected]... <snip>
> > >
> >
> > It is storing it for brief periods of time. When the spring/air is compressed, energy is stored
> > ( U = k x^2 ). However, damped suspension results in the force being spread over a long period
> > of time - thus, a smaller impulse, and less force to any one part of the trail. The overall
> > total is the same, but it spreads out the high pressures a bit. And then there are the
> > frictional losses, but those aren't usually too much of a big deal on bikes... unless you're
> > running Judy's
> >
> > Jon Bond
>
> That's the advanced class
I was going to say the same thing but you said it better. ;-)
--
Westie
M
Mike Vandeman
Guest
On Sat, 05 Apr 2003 06:15:06 -0500, PeterH <[email protected]> wrote:
.Mike Vandeman wrote: . .>You inadvertently demonstrated your pathetic understanding of physics.
Greater .>weight IS greater force. DUH! .> .F=MA. Greater weight only exerts greater force if A
remains constant or .is also increased. Should A decrease, then, all else being equal, F .will
decrease proportionately.
Since when does the acceleration due to GRAVITY decrease? DUH!
Not only is your grasp of physics .wanting, but your lingusitic skills could use fine tuning also.
You have .a annoying propensity for dumping a sematically null utterance at the .ends of sentences.
Your inability to understand even "DUH" puts you in a class by yourself. Special, as in "Special
Olympics".
.> my .>.Mountain bike, or my three year old neighbor's training bike. Force, is .>.force, is force.
The only force while riding along is gravity and in our .>.world, gravity, last time I checked, does
not magically get stronger when .>.one rides a mountain bike. .> .>Yes, it does. The heavier you
are, the greater your force in the ground. DUH! .> .> .> .> .The rider's weight has no correlation
whatever with the bike's realtive .sturdiness.
I never said it does. Mountain bikes were built stronger than normal bikes because of the beating
they get, which is IDENTICAL to the beating they give the trail, per Newton.
You skipped from the original point. And again your grasp of .physics is less than
deireable. . .Pete H
===
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
.Mike Vandeman wrote: . .>You inadvertently demonstrated your pathetic understanding of physics.
Greater .>weight IS greater force. DUH! .> .F=MA. Greater weight only exerts greater force if A
remains constant or .is also increased. Should A decrease, then, all else being equal, F .will
decrease proportionately.
Since when does the acceleration due to GRAVITY decrease? DUH!
Not only is your grasp of physics .wanting, but your lingusitic skills could use fine tuning also.
You have .a annoying propensity for dumping a sematically null utterance at the .ends of sentences.
Your inability to understand even "DUH" puts you in a class by yourself. Special, as in "Special
Olympics".
.> my .>.Mountain bike, or my three year old neighbor's training bike. Force, is .>.force, is force.
The only force while riding along is gravity and in our .>.world, gravity, last time I checked, does
not magically get stronger when .>.one rides a mountain bike. .> .>Yes, it does. The heavier you
are, the greater your force in the ground. DUH! .> .> .> .> .The rider's weight has no correlation
whatever with the bike's realtive .sturdiness.
I never said it does. Mountain bikes were built stronger than normal bikes because of the beating
they get, which is IDENTICAL to the beating they give the trail, per Newton.
You skipped from the original point. And again your grasp of .physics is less than
deireable. . .Pete H
===
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
- Status
