Weight transfer?

[Mikkel]

The quote was actually from a Wikipedia article. I thought I had a reasonable handle on the whole thing but it seems my understanding is a little rusty. My wife actually has a hard-bound copy of said lectures in her study.

She sounds like a keeper mate!

Working in the field I do, you necessarily develop a huge respect for Feynman. His talk "There's plenty of room at the bottom" is pretty much the manifesto for nano-technology - and that talk was presented in 1959.

As to the rest of what you've said, I know enough to see from this that you know what you're talking about (and certainly know more about this than I do). It makes for interesting reading.

I should hope so, mechanics are a tool in my toolbox. Would be like a mechanic who didn't know how to use an allen key.
Still, it doesn't really matter when it comes to motorcycles - the dynamics of such a complex system are far too hard to analyse without both deep considerations and a multiphysics model. However, the first step to being able to perform a meaningful analysis is to disect the system and understand it on a basic level - mechanically, aerodynamically, etc. When that understanding has been achieved you might be able to couple these different physical models and find an, in most cases approximate, solution for the system given certain exterior perturbations.

Personally, I'd rather go riding

[jrandom]

I should hope so, mechanics are a tool in my toolbox. Would be like a mechanic who didn't know how to use an allen key.
Still, it doesn't really matter when it comes to motorcycles - the dynamics of such a complex system are far too hard to analyse without both deep considerations and a multiphysics model. However, the first step to being able to perform a meaningful analysis is to disect the system and understand it on a basic level - mechanically, aerodynamically, etc. When that understanding has been achieved you might be able to couple these different physical models and find an, in most cases approximate, solution for the system given certain exterior perturbations.

*cough* pretentious wanker *cough*

Obviously I don't have the title quite sewn up yet...

[kezzafish]

It has nothing to do with neither the magnitude nor the orientation of the gravitational field. Only the gradient in the gravitational field matters.
Anyway, both of the cases are extremities that we need not concern ourselves with. I am merely arguing semantics.

Observed from outside an object needs to be affected by a centripetal force (a force that is orthogonal to the direction of travel) in order to perform a circular movement. The radius of the movement is proportional to the square of the velocity, proportional to the mass of the obejct in question and inversely proportional to the centripetal force.

If you perform a coordinate transformation and consider the object that performs the circular motion the origin of your coordinate system you will experience an artificial force equal, but anti-parallel, to the centripetal force - the centrifugal force.

Fuck me, how the fuck am i supposed to know what the fuck THAT means. I believe i once stuck my cock in a girl at an orthogonal angle to the way her piss flaps pointed but i'm not sure?

Gimme a break and please simplify this for me, i left school when i was 15 for a good reason and i'm not interested in going back.

From what you've said and my own assumption: gravity does not change therefore the COG cannot? What happens is: CF is (momentarily) strong enough to defy gravity? is this correct?

[swbarnett]

From what you've said and my own assumption: gravity does not change therefore the COG cannot?

That's the way I understand it. Because CF is not a gravitational force it can't alter the gravitational field. Therefore no change to the CoG.

What happens is: CF is (momentarily) strong enough to defy gravity? is this correct?

In simple terms, yes.