Wenting!!!

On Thu, 26 May 2005 at 03:35 GMT, Tamyka Bell (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

LotteBum said:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Seriously, I'm about 12kg overweight (at my height, that's a fair
chunk) and I'm quite disgustingly unfit myself....

Woah you must have put some on since I last saw you... or exaggerating?

I had seen a photo of LotteBum. All wimins are alike. Think they are
all fat. Bah, I say!

--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
I'm all for computer dating, but I wouldn't want one to marry my sister. --unk

On Thu, 26 May 2005 at 05:37 GMT, Resound (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

It's not so much that using the back brake is bad (I certainly do) but using
it in preference to the front brake can very easily catch you out if you
need to stop quickly. I do use the rear as well as the front because I can't
stand my bike on its nose from the hoods, so the rear does add braking
effort. It does lock when I stop hard though, so I have to modulate it.

I don't yet shift my weight properly, and I use my front brakes almost
entirely, so naturally, in an emergency, that's all I use.

Came down a hill, thought I would be able to make it all the way down
the track without using brakes, and then saw the turn a bit too late,
and a tree was in front. Front wheel slid a little, back wheel ended
up a couple of feet in the air, but I stopped about 1m from the tree.
Back wheel came back down with a thud, turned the handlebars whilst
stationary, but still both feet in the clips, and went on my merry
way. And then washed my knicks out.

--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
Sorry if there are errors in transmission - I'm sending this message
down the gigabit ethernet fiber with a laser pointer.

TimC said:

I don't yet shift my weight properly, and I use my front brakes almost
entirely, so naturally, in an emergency, that's all I use.

Came down a hill, thought I would be able to make it all the way down
the track without using brakes, and then saw the turn a bit too late,
and a tree was in front. Front wheel slid a little, back wheel ended
up a couple of feet in the air, but I stopped about 1m from the tree.

I use both for heavy braking, but then ease off both when I lock the rear.
Otherwise the only time I use the rear is if I've had the front wheel off and forgotten to reset the front brake.

Maybe I'd have a shorter stopping distance if I don't use(and hence lock) the rear?
The only time I've come close to going over the bars(from braking) was the first time I ever rode a bike with a front brake.

TimC <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

What is the name of the term in the equation that I affectionately
name the "stupidity term"? What symbol do they use? What happens
when you remove the stupidity term from the flow equation? Does the
turbulence disappear? 🙂

Safety factor. The safety of course is ours not theirs. Also known as
a WAG (Wild Ar*e Guess).

If we were to remove such factors from our gravity distribution models
then flow might approach laminar conditions but is not likely to
maintain a steady state for long of course then the results would not be
at all representative (if they ever were).

It's funny how attached people become to the numbers without knowing the
origin.

Case in point is vehicle length, generally represented as 7m for a light
vehicle and 13m for a heavy. Of course vehicles range between 1.2m and
25m on most arterials. And no one is regularly doing surveys to check
what proportions fit where or if there is a realistic average vehicle
size (a better method is to vary the length into a series of possilbe
solutions but it takes too long).

The stupidity factor is essential to all engineering calculations but in
particular to civils. We don't control the enviroment, we can't govern
our users nor can we effectively attempt to determine the inputs to a
high degree of accuracy. You just have to trust that we know what we
are doing.

(insert manical laughter here)

Cheers
BrettM

"Graeme" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Resound" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:42955f75$1
@dnews.tpgi.com.au:

Quoted message said:

I'm sure I've done a "Cumberland
reel" but I can't remember what it involves.

It's a set dance with 4 couples per set. At various times throughout the
dance two couples go to the centre of the set. The women then put their
arms on the men's shoulders and the men put their arms around the women's
backs. Now I think the "proper" way is for the men to gently lift the
women
and then spin slowly round, but if you put a little more effort into it
you
can quite easily spin fast enough that the women are spinning round
horizontally at head height. You need to make damned sure that you don't
get in the way of a low flying pair of legs!

Graeme

So sort of a "Little Christmas" on speed then.

"Carl Brewer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Absent Husband said:

"Sorry, didn't convince me. I'll disconnect the rear brakes on the car
and
the motorbike just as soon as I get home.

Theo"

<snip>

Hi Theo,

I think the above 'front brake' theory is actually why you used to see
a lot of cheaper cars fitted with front disc brakes (good), and cheaper
rear drum brakes (not as good...).

Cars are not the same as (motor|push)bikes. They almost never risk
lifting a back wheel. Sheldon's argument is good, but I don't
believe it's complete. He's assuming that the maximum braking
force you can apply means that the back wheel will lift. In
my understanding this is not the case, on any surface. If
you think about it a little further, it's clear that the bike has to
be in some form of equilibrium or it will roll over the front
wheel. He's assuming also the CoG of the bike isn't able to move.

This doesn't mean that the back wheel has to be in
the air, the back wheel can be anywhere. If you shift your weight
right back off the bike and use both brakes you will get more braking
force than if you just use the front brake. That said, the front
brake will be supplying the vast majority of the braking force
(>90%) but the rear brake is not useless. The heavier the bike
the greater force you can apply with the rear brake, especially
if the CoG is low.

Also, using the front brake in a cornering situation is
one fraught with great peril, on any surface.

Well no matter how far back I shifted on my MTB I could easily get the back
wheel clear of the ground under brakes. I imagined that road bike brakes
would be better than MTB brakes, thus the only real disappointment when I
got the OCR3 was how weedy the brakes are. This is also why I do actually
use the back brake when stopping on the road bike, even though they do lock
extremely easily.

"Theo Bekkers" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Absent Husband said:

I think the above 'front brake' theory is actually why you used to see
a lot of cheaper cars fitted with front disc brakes (good), and
cheaper rear drum brakes (not as good...).

'Cheaper' drum brakes may be the operative word, as well as the fact that
a handbrake is much easier to incorporate into a drum brake. I have no
problem with the front brake providing the most retardation in an
emergency stop, but to even suggest that the rear brake is redundant, and
should be ignored completely, is, IMHO, stupidity.

Theo

You're not ever likely to get a car to stand on it's nose under brakes,
unlike a bike.

"TimC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 26 May 2005 at 05:37 GMT, Resound (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

It's not so much that using the back brake is bad (I certainly do) but
using
it in preference to the front brake can very easily catch you out if you
need to stop quickly. I do use the rear as well as the front because I
can't
stand my bike on its nose from the hoods, so the rear does add braking
effort. It does lock when I stop hard though, so I have to modulate it.

I don't yet shift my weight properly, and I use my front brakes almost
entirely, so naturally, in an emergency, that's all I use.

Came down a hill, thought I would be able to make it all the way down
the track without using brakes, and then saw the turn a bit too late,
and a tree was in front. Front wheel slid a little, back wheel ended
up a couple of feet in the air, but I stopped about 1m from the tree.
Back wheel came back down with a thud, turned the handlebars whilst
stationary, but still both feet in the clips, and went on my merry
way. And then washed my knicks out.

--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
Sorry if there are errors in transmission - I'm sending this message
down the gigabit ethernet fiber with a laser pointer.

Was that on a road bike or MTB? I used to be able to stand my MTB on its
nose without any problems but not the road bike. I would have thought that
the calipers are capable, but I don't seem to have the leverage from the
hoods, and it doesn't seem to improve much from the drops. Anyone got any
tips on improving brakes? They're standard Sora brakes on whatever rims are
standard on the '04 OCR3s. Generic aftermarket pads, which are about as
effective as the originals.

On Thu, 26 May 2005 at 14:14 GMT, Resound (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

"TimC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Came down a hill, thought I would be able to make it all the way down
the track without using brakes, and then saw the turn a bit too late,
and a tree was in front. Front wheel slid a little, back wheel ended
up a couple of feet in the air, but I stopped about 1m from the tree.
Back wheel came back down with a thud, turned the handlebars whilst
stationary, but still both feet in the clips, and went on my merry
way. And then washed my knicks out.

Was that on a road bike or MTB? I used to be able to stand my MTB on its

An MTB, at the time.

--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
cat /kat/ n. A furry keyboard cover

Quoted message said:

I had seen a photo of LotteBum. All wimins are alike. Think they are
all fat. Bah, I say!

Was that on www.fatchicks.com or www.fatisus.com???

No seriously, how the h3ck did that come about?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Was that on a road bike or MTB? I used to be able to stand my MTB on its

I swear my roadbike could never, ever nose wheelie... I just don't think it's possible. They're engineered to be less 'agile' (if you can call it that) than MTB's. Speaking of which, I had my mtb on the front wheel a while ago when a pedestrian walked straight in front of me.

On Thu, 26 May 2005 at 22:04 GMT, LotteBum (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I had seen a photo of LotteBum. All wimins are alike. Think they are
all fat. Bah, I say!

Was that on www.fatchicks.com or 'www.fatisus.com'
(http://www.fatisus.com)???

No seriously, how the h3ck did that come about?

Wasn't it you that posted the photo of going across the finishing line
equal with two guys?

I promise I'm not stalking! 🙂

--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
Can you keep your witty comments shorter dude? I can't
make that my sig! --Hipatia

TimC said:

Wasn't it you that posted the photo of going across the finishing line equal with two guys?

I promise I'm not stalking! 🙂

That would be Gemma K track racing.. Geez Tim.. I ain't even in the country and I'm following better :P

Just pitched tent in backyard.. yay for camping out! :P

As for better braking on the roadie.. clean your rims and pads!!!!! Get a scourer onto the rims and lightly file the sheen off the pads. Over time a gloss appears on pads and grime builds up on rims. This robs braking power!
My bike had Campag rims on it before the Velocity's and they were VERY grippy. Nose wheelie easy.

hippy

Carl Brewer said:

Cars are not the same as (motor|push)bikes. They almost never risk
lifting a back wheel. Sheldon's argument is good, but I don't
believe it's complete. He's assuming that the maximum braking
force you can apply means that the back wheel will lift. In
my understanding this is not the case, on any surface. If
you think about it a little further, it's clear that the bike has to
be in some form of equilibrium or it will roll over the front
wheel. He's assuming also the CoG of the bike isn't able to move.

This doesn't mean that the back wheel has to be in
the air, the back wheel can be anywhere. If you shift your weight
right back off the bike and use both brakes you will get more braking
force than if you just use the front brake. That said, the front
brake will be supplying the vast majority of the braking force
(>90%) but the rear brake is not useless. The heavier the bike
the greater force you can apply with the rear brake, especially
if the CoG is low.

Also, using the front brake in a cornering situation is
one fraught with great peril, on any surface.

bwahahahahah

you obviously never raced superbikes!!!

if you aint throwin the bike around nor lifting wheels you aint trying

And as for lifting the rear wheel on a pushy,
try riding a fixie! must be that trek you ride 😉

AND im pretty sure i did same when the car hit me from white-lockin the brakes in sheer panic 🙄

F"who's brother used to convince him to do all kinds of crazy-[censored]-[censored] on a Dookie"Dutch

Tim said:

Wasn't it you that posted the photo of going across the finishing line
equal with two guys?

I wish!! The only time I'm capable of beating males is down hills with no pedalling allowed. Yay for inertia.

Quoted message said:

I promise I'm not stalking! 🙂

Well you're obviously not. I'm actually rather cut now.

LotteBum

On Fri, 27 May 2005 at 00:13 GMT, LotteBum (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Tim said:

I promise I'm not stalking! 🙂

Well you're obviously not. I'm actually rather cut now.

Oh, I can stalk if you want me to 🙂

--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
* Progress (n.): The process through which Usenet has evolved from
smart people in front of dumb terminals to dumb people in front of
smart terminals. -- [email hidden] (obscurity)

On Fri, 27 May 2005 at 00:09 GMT, flyingdutch (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

if you aint throwin the bike around nor lifting wheels you aint trying

And as for lifting the rear wheel on a pushy,
try riding a fixie! must be that trek you ride 😉

Eh? How? Only if you are non-pure and use a front brake, shirley?

--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
Anyone seeking the "Relativistic Quantum Mechanics" soft option
course, may wish to leave now. -- Intro lecture to RQM

Quoted message said:

Oh, I can stalk if you want me to 🙂

Oh Tim, that's so sweet of you. I've never been stalked before.

*flutters eye lashes*

LotteBum

TimC said:

On Fri, 27 May 2005 at 00:13 GMT, LotteBum (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Tim said:

I promise I'm not stalking! 🙂

Well you're obviously not. I'm actually rather cut now.

Oh, I can stalk if you want me to 🙂

Oooh LotteBum look at that, you've got your OWN a.b romance now!

Tam

hippy wrote:
<snip> Just pitched tent in backyard.. yay for camping out! :P

A tent in the backyard? Why? Do you think that's smart? What kind of a
crazy nutter suggested you do that?!

😉

Tam