Physics 101

TO: All you dumbasses who think you go faster around a turn on a
velodrome than on the straightaways


You people need to go take take a physics class.

Thanks,

Magilla

"MagillaGorilla" wrote in message
...
TO: All you dumbasses who think you go faster around a turn on a
velodrome than on the straightaways


You people need to go take take a physics class.

That's a double take. OK, some questions.....

1/ Where does PE go when a rider transfers from vertical to a 45 lean?
2/ If the rider practically rides the black line, does his center of
mass travel as far as the measured distance of the turn?
3/ What happens to rolling resistance in a turn?
4/ What affect does 1, 2 and 3 have on speed?

Phil H

Philip Holman wrote:
"MagillaGorilla" wrote in message
...

TO: All you dumbasses who think you go faster around a turn on a
velodrome than on the straightaways


You people need to go take take a physics class.


That's a double take. OK, some questions.....

1/ Where does PE go when a rider transfers from vertical to a 45 lean?
2/ If the rider practically rides the black line, does his center of
mass travel as far as the measured distance of the turn?
3/ What happens to rolling resistance in a turn?
4/ What affect does 1, 2 and 3 have on speed?

Phil H



Alright, listen and listen good.

1. The potential energy is NOT transfered to speed. It is transfered
to friction at a net loss BECAUSE when you leave the turn the rider has
to input energy to go from a 45 degree lean to upright again. Isn't
this obvious? You are also fighting against inertia and this cancels out
any temporary gains due to leaning.

2. No, but it is the speed of the bike that counts because that is the
rate-limiting factor, not the center of mass. Besides, this gain is
negligible and is offset by increased in friction and loss of energy due
to change in inertia.

3. Decreases slightly.

4. Decreases speed because the factors you cite are not the only things
going on in a turn.

You are failing to take into account the fact the biggest variables of
physics that occur in a turn on a velodrome or anywhere else that make
you go slower is that you are changing your inertia and your momentum
(your G's go up, not down). To actually think that you go faster around
a turn tells me you have no 'feel' or understanding for basic concepts
of physics.

According to you, everything goes slower in a turn except a bicycle.
This defies empirical logic. It's just bizarre to think that. Think
about what you are doing in a turn...you are taking all your momentum
(mV) - all your energy - and changing its vector 180 degrees! That act
requires a HUGE energy input (i.e. loss) that had you been going
straight would have been put into the pedals. How can that be more
efficient than NOT changing your vector or inertia at all (i.e. riding
straight)? ANSWER: it can't.

The things you cite above are simply moments where you gain a slight bit
of energy at certain instantaneous moments. But since energy cannot be
created or destroyed, we know that you have to "pay" for that somewhere
- like when you exit the turn and have to expend MORE energy to right
yourself (i.e. go from 45 degrees to upright). Even if you could build
a circular velodrome where you could perpetually ride around in a circle
leaning at 45 degrees, you would still not go faster than in a
straightaway because you are constantly fighting inertia.

If Lance wants to break the hour record, he should do it on a velodrome
with the LONGEST straightaways, and not by riding around in a circle
where most of his energy would be lost in friction to fight inertia.

Although this would be best demonstrated using quantifiable numbers, I
really don't think it's necessary given that it's just not logical to
think you go faster in a turn since nothing I know of goes faster in a turn.

And the reason why NASCARs go slower in turns isn't because of loss of
traction. It's because they are fighting inertia and the ennrgy is
dissipated into heat in the starboard tires. Same as a bike.

If you were to monitor the air pressure of your bike tires on a
velodrome, they would be highest in the turns because a rider's G's go
up in a turn. That means a loss of energy that does not occur on the
straightaways that can be put into the pedals.

I have office hours later today if you need to talk about this more.
Bring that cute sophomore who sits next to you in class.

Take care,

Magilla

Please don't feed the trolls. Thanks.

Bob Schwartz

Bob Schwartz wrote:

Please don't feed the trolls. Thanks.

Bob Schwartz



Ignorant people are always afraid of disagreement. So your post makes
sense when viewed in that context. How about going to college and then
coming back in here and posting?

See how far you get with that attitude in a university setting.



Physics Professor: ...so class, that's why a bike rider goes slower in a
turn on a velodrome then when he's going straight.

Bob Schwartz: Shut up...you're such a troll.



You're quite some intellect, Bob.


Take care,


Magilla

MagillaGorilla wrote:


See how far you get with that attitude in a university setting.

In my next life, I have resolved not to deal with either academics or
geeks. Unfortunately for the moment, I have to deal with both. And the
attitude you indicate is not the problem. The problem is the constant
hair-splitting and creation of alternate realities that "could" occur
and by some amazingly twisted logic, become reality for an academic. I
need a responsible adult to deal with the squabbling most days...

"Stewart Fleming" wrote in message
...

In my next life, I have resolved not to deal with either academics or
geeks. Unfortunately for the moment, I have to deal with both. And the
attitude you indicate is not the problem. The problem is the constant
hair-splitting and creation of alternate realities that "could" occur and
by some amazingly twisted logic, become reality for an academic. I need a
responsible adult to deal with the squabbling most days...

Thank you. Pay attention you putzes out there -- you know who you are. And
if you don't know who you are, ask me. I'll set you right up. And if
Lafferty doesn't know who you are, just remind him you might be the opposite
of you you are.

I think, therefore I wannabe.

"Jim Flom" wrote in message
news:MErRd.11862$%y.8705@clgrps12...
"Stewart Fleming" wrote in message
...

In my next life, I have resolved not to deal with either academics or
geeks. Unfortunately for the moment, I have to deal with both. And the
attitude you indicate is not the problem. The problem is the constant
hair-splitting and creation of alternate realities that "could" occur and
by some amazingly twisted logic, become reality for an academic. I need
a responsible adult to deal with the squabbling most days...

Thank you. Pay attention you putzes out there -- you know who you are.
And if you don't know who you are, ask me. I'll set you right up. And if
Lafferty doesn't know who you are, just remind him you might be the
opposite of you you are.

I think, therefore I wannabe.

Gödel just phoned to say that you may no be who you think you are. So, who
might you be?

"B Lafferty" wrote in message
ink.net...

Gödel just phoned to say that you may no be who you think you are. So,
who might you be?

I might be... thee!

"Jim Flom" wrote in message
news:SatRd.8$0h.7@clgrps13...
"B Lafferty" wrote in message
ink.net...

Gödel just phoned to say that you may no be who you think you are. So,
who might you be?

I might be... thee!

Then God help us both. ;-)