I'm just curious, but what is it about this topic that so captivates you? You're the only person to ever bring this concept up AND you're apparently the only person who tries to refute what has been proven both mathematically and empirically.
Is this the ultimate troll for you or are you just unwilling to change your mind no matter how much evidence to the contrary of your view is presented?
Magilla has a trolling style that depends on volume. He needs to constantly pick at the troll in order to keep it bleeding. One technique he uses is to doggedly defend indefensible positions.
I'm just curious, but what is it about this topic that so captivates you? You're the only person to ever bring this concept up AND you're apparently the only person who tries to refute what has been proven both mathematically and empirically.
Quoted message said:
Is this the ultimate troll for you or are you just unwilling to change your mind no matter how much evidence to the contrary of your view is presented?
Magilla has a trolling style that depends on volume. He needs to constantly pick at the troll in order to keep it bleeding. One technique he uses is to doggedly defend indefensible positions.
I'd just let it go.
Bob Schwartz
I was just trolling the troll, to see how he'd respond. Sort of like picking a scab.
I'm just curious, but what is it about this topic that so captivates you? You're the only person to ever bring this concept up AND you're apparently the only person who tries to refute what has been proven both mathematically and empirically.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Is this the ultimate troll for you or are you just unwilling to change your mind no matter how much evidence to the contrary of your view is presented?
Quoted message said:
Magilla has a trolling style that depends on volume. He needs to constantly pick at the troll in order to keep it bleeding. One technique he uses is to doggedly defend indefensible positions.
Quoted message said:
I'd just let it go.
Quoted message said:
Bob Schwartz
I was just trolling the troll, to see how he'd respond. Sort of like picking a scab.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
OK Magilla, build your velodrome in straight line, if you think it is a better idea. I'll keep building them oval and let the market decide. P.J.
I'm just curious, but what is it about this topic that so captivates you? You're the only person to ever bring this concept up AND you're apparently the only person who tries to refute what has been proven both mathematically and empirically.
Is this the ultimate troll for you or are you just unwilling to change your mind no matter how much evidence to the contrary of your view is presented?
Magilla has a trolling style that depends on volume. He needs to constantly pick at the troll in order to keep it bleeding. One technique he uses is to doggedly defend indefensible positions.
I'm just curious, but what is it about this topic that so captivates you? You're the only person to ever bring this concept up AND you're apparently the only person who tries to refute what has been proven both mathematically and empirically.
Quoted message said:
Is this the ultimate troll for you or are you just unwilling to change your mind no matter how much evidence to the contrary of your view is presented?
Magilla has a trolling style that depends on volume. He needs to constantly pick at the troll in order to keep it bleeding. One technique he uses is to doggedly defend indefensible positions.
I'd just let it go.
Bob Schwartz
I was just trolling the troll, to see how he'd respond. Sort of like picking a scab.
I'll see you at the cafe in Saulsalito too - 3:00 p.m. this Friday.
>I'm just curious, but what is it about this topic that so captivates >you? You're the only person to ever bring this concept up AND you're >apparently the only person who tries to refute what has been proven >both mathematically and empirically.
Quoted message said:
>Is this the ultimate troll for you or are you just unwilling to change >your mind no matter how much evidence to the contrary of your view is >presented?
Quoted message said:
Magilla has a trolling style that depends on volume. He needs to constantly pick at the troll in order to keep it bleeding. One technique he uses is to doggedly defend indefensible positions.
Quoted message said:
I'd just let it go.
Quoted message said:
Bob Schwartz
I was just trolling the troll, to see how he'd respond. Sort of like picking a scab.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
OK Magilla, build your velodrome in straight line, if you think it is a better idea. I'll keep building them oval and let the market decide. P.J.
If you are in fact a hamster wheel builder, you should take home from this debate that you should build the largest velodrome oval you can get away with under the rules if you want your track to set records.
So drop your cute attitude before I wipe the taste out of your mouth.
On Dec 3, 7:30 am, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>Scott wrote:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>I'm just curious, but what is it about this topic that so captivates >>you? You're the only person to ever bring this concept up AND you're >>apparently the only person who tries to refute what has been proven >>both mathematically and empirically.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>Is this the ultimate troll for you or are you just unwilling to change >>your mind no matter how much evidence to the contrary of your view is >>presented?
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>Magilla has a trolling style that depends on volume. He >needs to constantly pick at the troll in order to keep >it bleeding. One technique he uses is to doggedly defend >indefensible positions.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>I'd just let it go.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>Bob Schwartz
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I was just trolling the troll, to see how he'd respond. Sort of like picking a scab.- Hide quoted text -
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
- Show quoted text -
Quoted message said:
OK Magilla, build your velodrome in straight line, if you think it is a better idea. I'll keep building them oval and let the market decide. P.J.
If you are in fact a hamster wheel builder, you should take home from this debate that you should build the largest velodrome oval you can get away with under the rules if you want your track to set records.
So drop your cute attitude before I wipe the taste out of your mouth.
Magilla- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I have built a few velodromes, see: www.junek-velodromes.com First two with my own money to provide a facility for St. Catharines C.C.(Ont.,Canada), where Gord Singleton, Steve Bauer and many other good ones came from. I know a bit about the mechanics of velodrome riding and I am also racing on them for last 50 years. We are talking here about fairly insignificant technical details, conditions are the same for everybody racing on each particular velodrome, or piece of road, what is the problem? The only significant difference between straight road and oval velodrome is factor of leaning for timed distance records. For 1 hour record, for instance, rider's center of gravity would travel 177.2 meters shorter distance on 250 meters velodrome, because of leaning. Shorter the track, more lean and shorter the distance which will rider's center of gravity travel. Somewhere around 200 meters track, physiological effect of increased G forces may start to be negative. Trust me on this, I know how it feels, have raced on velodromes from 120m to 500 meters, including pro six day races. Your theory about longer the track the better is not correct, in this respect. Peter Junek
2) Also do this easy experiment when you get the chance:
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).
I do find it interesting that you don't understand gyroscopic precession and how it applies to a wheel.
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.
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
2) Also do this easy experiment when you get the chance:
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).
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.
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.
------- In a turn those forces are no longer perpendicular. They are pependicular in a straightaway though.
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.
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.
I read with interest your article on the varieties of velodromes. The increase pedal speed tells me that the geometric-kinematic effect is manifest: the effect of the difference in path lengths between the center of mass and the contact patch.
"MagillaGorilla" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
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.
