Who-hoo!

[David Damerell]

Quoting Martin Dann <[email protected]>:
>Yes that is what I meant. Have you ever started at the top
>of a hill and just freewheeled without any pedalling, it
>takes a while to get going. The lighter bike will have a
>better initial acceleration,

Uh - bunk. The force is proportional to the mass, and so the accelerations
are equal until wind resistance takes over.
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruitkonomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <S5b*[email protected]>, David Damerell wrote:
>Quoting Martin Dann <[email protected]>:
>>Yes that is what I meant. Have you ever started at the top
>>of a hill and just freewheeled without any pedalling, it
>>takes a while to get going. The lighter bike will have a
>>better initial acceleration,
>
>Uh - bunk. The force is proportional to the mass, and so the accelerations
>are equal until wind resistance takes over.

I'm fairly sure he means the lighter bike will have a better initial
acceleration _when pedalled_, at the point at which without pedalling
it would take a while to get going. And if you put the same rider(s)
on a more massive bike, their pedalling force will not be proportional to
the mass, so the initial acceleration of the lighter bike will indeed
then be higher.

 

[David Damerell]

[Supersedes]
Quoting Alan Braggins <[email protected]>:
>In article <S5b*[email protected]>, David Damerell wrote:
>>Quoting Martin Dann <[email protected]>:
>>>Yes that is what I meant. Have you ever started at the top
>>>of a hill and just freewheeled without any pedalling, it
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>takes a while to get going. The lighter bike will have a
>>>better initial acceleration,
>>Uh - bunk. The force is proportional to the mass, and so the accelerations
>>are equal until wind resistance takes over.
>I'm fairly sure he means the lighter bike will have a better initial
>acceleration _when pedalled_,

In that case you should reexamine the article replied to.

Or maybe not. I'm sorry; I think it's too incoherent to definitely admit
of either explanation.
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruitkonomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <AIl*[email protected]>, David Damerell wrote:
>[Supersedes]
>Quoting Alan Braggins <[email protected]>:
>>In article <S5b*[email protected]>, David Damerell wrote:
>>>Quoting Martin Dann <[email protected]>:
>>>>Yes that is what I meant. Have you ever started at the top
>>>>of a hill and just freewheeled without any pedalling, it
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>takes a while to get going. The lighter bike will have a
>>>>better initial acceleration,
>>>Uh - bunk. The force is proportional to the mass, and so the accelerations
>>>are equal until wind resistance takes over.
>>I'm fairly sure he means the lighter bike will have a better initial
>>acceleration _when pedalled_, at the point at which without pedalling
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>it would take a while to get going.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>In that case you should reexamine the article replied to.
>Or maybe not.

Indeed.