I'm just waiting for someone to tell y' that if y'had a Suzuki you would have been that fast.Originally Posted by merv
I'm just waiting for someone to tell y' that if y'had a Suzuki you would have been that fast.Originally Posted by merv
Originally Posted by skidmark
Originally Posted by Phil Vincent
Lets not confuse speed with velocity or weight with mass. If I remember my 4th form science lessons (and, lets face it, it was a loong time ago..),they are not the same thing. It could have a bearing on what you, the esteemed boffins, are trying to explain to the poor uneducated plebs like me..
Diarrhoea is hereditary - it runs in your jeans
If my nose was running money, I'd blow it all on you...
It was all very annoying when they tought us it was centafugal force one year then the next suddenly centrafugal force no longer exhists and centripetel is the word of the day. Can't these 'scientists' make up thier mind?
Damn braniacs getting revenge for all that nerd shit in highschool.
Sever
Now and forever
you're just another lost soul about to be mine again
see her, you'll never free her
you must surrender it all
And give life to me again
Disturbed - Inside the Fire
This is all neat and stuff but does anyone know what the 13 herbs and spices are?
Who cares.....it's still cat underneath.Originally Posted by Harry33
![]()
Do you realise how many holes there could be if people would just take the time to take the dirt out of them?
No you would not. Velocity or forward movement reduces weight at point of contact. This is one of the few things that still sticks from my science class, years ago. It's one of the reasons cars slide off the road when going round corners at speed. They become too light and lose traction and keep on travelling in the direction of momentum.Originally Posted by scumdog
It's the reason racing cars have foils so that wind pressure helps to 'push' the car down on the tarmac.
Skyryder
Free Scott Watson.
This http://regentsprep.org/Regents/physi...if/centrif.htm
explains the difference between Centrapetal and Centrfugal Force. The two are not the same.
Skyryder
Free Scott Watson.
As already mentioned, "centrifugal force" is a disgusting laymans term for an observation of straight-line force about a rotating central frame of reference.Originally Posted by Waylander
It's all a borgeious conspiracy.
Eat the riches! Eat your money! The revolution will be DELICIOUS!!!
a vehicle (and everything for that matter) is being held on the earth at 1g. if you exceed 1g in a sidewise or upwards direction the vehicle will head there.
what is being said here means that a 4wd vehicle, on a 4wd dyno/treadmill, when it has it's wheels rotating, will weigh less? don't think so - it still will exert 1g downwards.
It's not because they get 'lighter' - it's because the lateral force exceeds the downwards force (gravity)Originally Posted by Skyryder
To look at it another way when a car is slowing down it should get heavier according to your theory - so if you slow down as you go around a corner the car should stick better and grip the road - not sledge straight ahead off the road?
And yes, airfoils do 'push' a car downwards - to overcome the sideways pull of lateral forces when cornering AND at high speeds to stop 'lift' due to airflow over the body.
Winding up drongos, foil hat wearers and over sensitive KBers for over 14,000 posts...........![]()
" Life is not a rehearsal, it's as happy or miserable as you want to make it"
geez SD - that's a late night on the riviera!
the resultant component of weight does shift as the car moves around, at a standstill it is right below the c of g, but apply an acelleration in any direction (or multiple directions) and the resultant vector will move. the total mass doesn't change, so the weight of the vehicle doesn't change, unless there is a substantial (that is, measurable) change in altitude, to one which is beginning to realise a change in the earth's force due to gravity
Any centripetal force from the wheels act equally up as they do down so there wont be any weight change, unless you're nearing the speed of light and E=mc^2 is coming into play bu that's another story.
And the original q about whether the centripetal acceleration on the wheel will deform the tyre more = bigger contact patch; This is why you buy speed rated tyres, for cars at least, I'm not sure about bikes, I havent had to buy any yet, but the tyres can expand from the force and all but want to leave the rim if they're not up to task. But in real life (with a properly rated tyre) the extra deformation from centripetal force compared to you sitting on the bike would be minimal against a tyre inflated to 30psi. Really.
Yeah well home from quelling riots, rescuing virgins, busting drunks, etc etc and needed an 'unwind' before hitting the sack.Originally Posted by marty
![]()
![]()
Winding up drongos, foil hat wearers and over sensitive KBers for over 14,000 posts...........![]()
" Life is not a rehearsal, it's as happy or miserable as you want to make it"
Sorry, you misunderstand. That was not the original question. Skyrider seems to understand where I was coming from. Perhaps I worded it ambiguously.Originally Posted by thealmightytaco
The question (reworded) was - does the pressure exerted on the contact patch lighten as a bike gets faster??
Everything has a given mass, but it's weight is subject to gravity and other forces, so can *alter*. The braking scenario is one - whereby impetus denied translates to a greatly increased downward pressure on the front contact patch, thereby making the attached bike 'weigh more'. Also when accelerating, the same force applies to the rear contact patch, for as long as acceleration continues.
Do you realise how many holes there could be if people would just take the time to take the dirt out of them?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks