exciting bike ride

On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 18:38:06 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 2:14:13 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
All the way to impact
https://nypost.com/video/mountain-bi...orribly-wrong/
Andrew Muzi

I'm not so sure that bike's and that layout could even lead to a successful landing.
It looks from the way the front suspension dips and throws him over the bars that
an unsuspended fork would help to maintain a better weight distribution. In this
particular case, of course, he hit with the front wheel at the wrong angle and, as
Jobst pointed out, once your front wheel is gone, there is nothing you can do to
save yourself.

Andre Jute
Geometrics

Agreed. So, what prevents such suicidal bicycle athletes from
attaching ailerons and a tail with rudder elevators? Cable controls
are easy enough. That would convert this from an exercise in
uncontrolled ballistics, into some more aeronautical. If there's some
acronym encrusted organization regulating such attempts, replacing the
front spokes with disk wheels, would give some semblance of control
and perhaps even some lift or pitch control. Attaching spoilers to
the riders arms and legs would also allow some attitude control
without actually converting the bicycle and rider into a glider.
Perhaps the next such video will feature some genuine engineering.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 5:28:22 AM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 18:38:06 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 2:14:13 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
All the way to impact
https://nypost.com/video/mountain-bi...orribly-wrong/
Andrew Muzi

I'm not so sure that bike's and that layout could even lead to a successful landing.
It looks from the way the front suspension dips and throws him over the bars that
an unsuspended fork would help to maintain a better weight distribution. In this
particular case, of course, he hit with the front wheel at the wrong angle and, as
Jobst pointed out, once your front wheel is gone, there is nothing you can do to
save yourself.

Andre Jute
Geometrics

Agreed. So, what prevents such suicidal bicycle athletes from
attaching ailerons and a tail with rudder elevators? Cable controls
are easy enough. That would convert this from an exercise in
uncontrolled ballistics, into some more aeronautical. If there's some
acronym encrusted organization regulating such attempts, replacing the
front spokes with disk wheels, would give some semblance of control
and perhaps even some lift or pitch control. Attaching spoilers to
the riders arms and legs would also allow some attitude control
without actually converting the bicycle and rider into a glider.
Perhaps the next such video will feature some genuine engineering.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

I would scrap that bike and start again with a solid fork, long wheelbase bike in which he can get down much lower for better weight distribution. I don't know about the aero aids you mention: too complicated. But just a boom out the back of the bike with a weight or a wheelie on the end would already be a large help in maintaining a head-up attitude for the bike, so that the front wheel doesn't strike first and repeat the disaster on the film.

The truth is, unless some engineering point is being proven, I don't see any point to such records, though the showmen promoting them might call profit an adequate reason.

Andre Jute
Evel Knievel he ain't

On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 22:44:04 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote:

On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 5:28:22 AM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 18:38:06 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 2:14:13 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
All the way to impact
https://nypost.com/video/mountain-bi...orribly-wrong/
Andrew Muzi

I'm not so sure that bike's and that layout could even lead to a successful landing.
It looks from the way the front suspension dips and throws him over the bars that
an unsuspended fork would help to maintain a better weight distribution. In this
particular case, of course, he hit with the front wheel at the wrong angle and, as
Jobst pointed out, once your front wheel is gone, there is nothing you can do to
save yourself.

Andre Jute
Geometrics

Agreed. So, what prevents such suicidal bicycle athletes from
attaching ailerons and a tail with rudder elevators? Cable controls
are easy enough. That would convert this from an exercise in
uncontrolled ballistics, into some more aeronautical. If there's some
acronym encrusted organization regulating such attempts, replacing the
front spokes with disk wheels, would give some semblance of control
and perhaps even some lift or pitch control. Attaching spoilers to
the riders arms and legs would also allow some attitude control
without actually converting the bicycle and rider into a glider.
Perhaps the next such video will feature some genuine engineering.

I would scrap that bike and start again with a solid fork, long wheelbase
bike in which he can get down much lower for better weight distribution.
I don't know about the aero aids you mention: too complicated. But just
a boom out the back of the bike with a weight or a wheelie on the end
would already be a large help in maintaining a head-up attitude for the
bike, so that the front wheel doesn't strike first and repeat the disaster
on the film.

Sigh. Please engage your imagination and shift it into high gear.
The problem is not that you can ballistic ally convert oneself and
bicycle into a ballistic projectile, but rather what can you do with
the contrivance while it is in the air. The world record failing
distance test has all the thrills and excitement of a circus human
cannonball. Downhill zoom, a few seconds of pointless thrashing, the
inevitable crash, and it's over.

By attaching aerodynamic surfaces to the bicycle, the distances
attainable will be larger, the pointless thrashing becomes useful
aerobatics, and a safe landing is theoretically possible. In other
words, it would be a spectacle, not an exercise in projectile
optimization. It opens up the possibility for jumping bicycles over
wide chasms, tall obstacles, and rows of buses, formerly the exclusive
domain of motorcycles. Use your imagination for further feats of
daring and stupidity that having aerodynamic surfaces and controls
will provide.

So, forget about optimizing sealing wax and whale oil and think about
how you might improve on the design of a bicycle to provide lift and
control surfaces.

The truth is, unless some engineering point is being proven, I don't
see any point to such records, though the showmen promoting them
might call profit an adequate reason.

The point of having such records is that further design and
performance improvements will be judged not on their own merits, but
on their ability to supersede prior art. It's difficult to gauge
progress if such records are not duly documented and recorded.

Andre Jute
Evel Knievel he ain't

He could have made it across the Snake River canyon if he had some
extra lift and better aerodynamic control.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Friday, 25 October 2019 17:18:06 UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Snipped
So, forget about optimizing sealing wax and whale oil and think about
how you might improve on the design of a bicycle to provide lift and
control surfaces.
Snipped

Andre Jute
Evel Knievel he ain't

He could have made it across the Snake River canyon if he had some
extra lift and better aerodynamic control.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Gossamer Albatross?

Cheers

You're such a cynic, Jeff. The promoters will love you.

What about the pilote's life and limbs?

All the same, what you describe is basically what the Wright Bros did a century ago. I recently read an excellent short biography of them by David McCullough, and they started out as a bicycle mechanics and designers and makers. Of course, they had to invent the aero-surfaces as they went. I especially like the simplicity of their flex-wing.

Andre Jute
Envious!

On Friday, October 25, 2019 at 10:18:06 PM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 22:44:04 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote:

On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 5:28:22 AM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 18:38:06 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 2:14:13 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
All the way to impact
https://nypost.com/video/mountain-bi...orribly-wrong/
Andrew Muzi

I'm not so sure that bike's and that layout could even lead to a successful landing.
It looks from the way the front suspension dips and throws him over the bars that
an unsuspended fork would help to maintain a better weight distribution. In this
particular case, of course, he hit with the front wheel at the wrong angle and, as
Jobst pointed out, once your front wheel is gone, there is nothing you can do to
save yourself.

Andre Jute
Geometrics

Agreed. So, what prevents such suicidal bicycle athletes from
attaching ailerons and a tail with rudder elevators? Cable controls
are easy enough. That would convert this from an exercise in
uncontrolled ballistics, into some more aeronautical. If there's some
acronym encrusted organization regulating such attempts, replacing the
front spokes with disk wheels, would give some semblance of control
and perhaps even some lift or pitch control. Attaching spoilers to
the riders arms and legs would also allow some attitude control
without actually converting the bicycle and rider into a glider.
Perhaps the next such video will feature some genuine engineering.

I would scrap that bike and start again with a solid fork, long wheelbase
bike in which he can get down much lower for better weight distribution..
I don't know about the aero aids you mention: too complicated. But just
a boom out the back of the bike with a weight or a wheelie on the end
would already be a large help in maintaining a head-up attitude for the
bike, so that the front wheel doesn't strike first and repeat the disaster
on the film.

Sigh. Please engage your imagination and shift it into high gear.
The problem is not that you can ballistic ally convert oneself and
bicycle into a ballistic projectile, but rather what can you do with
the contrivance while it is in the air. The world record failing
distance test has all the thrills and excitement of a circus human
cannonball. Downhill zoom, a few seconds of pointless thrashing, the
inevitable crash, and it's over.

By attaching aerodynamic surfaces to the bicycle, the distances
attainable will be larger, the pointless thrashing becomes useful
aerobatics, and a safe landing is theoretically possible. In other
words, it would be a spectacle, not an exercise in projectile
optimization. It opens up the possibility for jumping bicycles over
wide chasms, tall obstacles, and rows of buses, formerly the exclusive
domain of motorcycles. Use your imagination for further feats of
daring and stupidity that having aerodynamic surfaces and controls
will provide.

So, forget about optimizing sealing wax and whale oil and think about
how you might improve on the design of a bicycle to provide lift and
control surfaces.

The truth is, unless some engineering point is being proven, I don't
see any point to such records, though the showmen promoting them
might call profit an adequate reason.

The point of having such records is that further design and
performance improvements will be judged not on their own merits, but
on their ability to supersede prior art. It's difficult to gauge
progress if such records are not duly documented and recorded.

Andre Jute
Evel Knievel he ain't

He could have made it across the Snake River canyon if he had some
extra lift and better aerodynamic control.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 14:30:06 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Friday, 25 October 2019 17:18:06 UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Snipped
So, forget about optimizing sealing wax and whale oil and think about
how you might improve on the design of a bicycle to provide lift and
control surfaces.
Snipped

Andre Jute
Evel Knievel he ain't

He could have made it across the Snake River canyon if he had some
extra lift and better aerodynamic control.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Gossamer Albatross?

Cheers
https://www.flitetest.com/articles/w...ake-to-the-air
It has two wheels and it flies.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 14:18:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

The point of having such records is that further design and performance
improvements will be judged not on their own merits, but on their
ability to supersede prior art. It's difficult to gauge progress if
such records are not duly documented and recorded.

Oh, I thought the purpose was to put a bit of darwinian slection back
into the human race.

On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 15:39:42 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:

You're such a cynic, Jeff. The promoters will love you.

What about the pilote's life and limbs?

All the same, what you describe is basically what the Wright Bros did a
century ago. I recently read an excellent short biography of them by
David McCullough, and they started out as a bicycle mechanics and
designers and makers. Of course, they had to invent the aero-surfaces as
they went. I especially like the simplicity of their flex-wing.


Is there any one on this group who didn't know that?
It was definitly part of australian school education, including the fact
that they didn't invent anything, but simply merger a light engine to a
kite airframe, which is itself wasn't that unusual at the time.
P.S. if you'd pay attentin at school, you'd have also heard of Lawrence
Hargreavesm and his "kits" that predated the wright Brothers. Newspaper
did cross the Pacific, both ways in those days.

On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 06:19:05 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 15:39:42 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:

You're such a cynic, Jeff. The promoters will love you.

What about the pilote's life and limbs?

All the same, what you describe is basically what the Wright Bros did a
century ago. I recently read an excellent short biography of them by
David McCullough, and they started out as a bicycle mechanics and
designers and makers. Of course, they had to invent the aero-surfaces as
they went. I especially like the simplicity of their flex-wing.


Is there any one on this group who didn't know that?
It was definitly part of australian school education, including the fact
that they didn't invent anything, but simply merger a light engine to a
kite airframe, which is itself wasn't that unusual at the time.
P.S. if you'd pay attentin at school, you'd have also heard of Lawrence
Hargreavesm and his "kits" that predated the wright Brothers. Newspaper
did cross the Pacific, both ways in those days.

Actually they designed and built the engine as there wasn't anything
that they felt light enough to use. Said to be the first engine to
have an aluminum crankcase :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 13:54:45 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 06:19:05 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 15:39:42 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:

You're such a cynic, Jeff. The promoters will love you.

What about the pilote's life and limbs?

All the same, what you describe is basically what the Wright Bros did
a century ago. I recently read an excellent short biography of them by
David McCullough, and they started out as a bicycle mechanics and
designers and makers. Of course, they had to invent the aero-surfaces
as they went. I especially like the simplicity of their flex-wing.


Is there any one on this group who didn't know that?
It was definitly part of australian school education, including the fact
that they didn't invent anything, but simply merger a light engine to a
kite airframe, which is itself wasn't that unusual at the time.
P.S. if you'd pay attentin at school, you'd have also heard of Lawrence
Hargreavesm and his "kits" that predated the wright Brothers. Newspaper
did cross the Pacific, both ways in those days.

Actually they designed and built the engine as there wasn't anything
that they felt light enough to use. Said to be the first engine to have
an aluminum crankcase :-)

I didn't know that bit. I believe the problem allthe interesed tinkers of
the time was finding a light enough engine to make ay significant flight
possible.

In any case, I know the fact that the wright Bros were bicycle mechanics
has been mentioned in a couple of modernish movies, but you have tgo bbe
sure of taking anything in movies as historical fact.