A few slaps yes, as pointed out. Hitting you hard enough to break bones no. And the dudes wear super gloves anyway. It's sweet to see you getting so worked up though
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Apr 16 2008, 06:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Who ever agrees with this should go back to school and learn elementary physics. The issue is NOT the "forward velocity" but rather the force of wind flapping the thing around.
I already gave you guys a great example, but here is another one. Take your car out to 200mph. Put on a necklace around your neck with one of those medallions rappers like to wear, and then stick your head out the window while holding the chain in front of you. Tell me something; are you and the car traveling at about the same speed (velocity)? Yes. But does the fuking medallion have the potential of flapping & slapping the .... out of your face? Yes. Would you consider this "negligible" and the "experience equivalent to having the thing flapping ...as if both elements are stationary"? .... NO.
Thank God you don't work for NASA! (with all due respect...of course)
ok mate. do the test you suggest then do this test and compare results. have a mate stand by the side of the road holding this medallion at the hight your head is while sticking out of the car window travelling at 200mph. let it hit your face and see which experiment caused the most damage to your face.
maybe a letter to mythbusters is the safer option tho.
I already gave you guys a great example, but here is another one. Take your car out to 200mph. Put on a necklace around your neck with one of those medallions rappers like to wear, and then stick your head out the window while holding the chain in front of you. Tell me something; are you and the car traveling at about the same speed (velocity)? Yes. But does the fuking medallion have the potential of flapping & slapping the .... out of your face? Yes. Would you consider this "negligible" and the "experience equivalent to having the thing flapping ...as if both elements are stationary"? .... NO.
Thank God you don't work for NASA! (with all due respect...of course)
ok mate. do the test you suggest then do this test and compare results. have a mate stand by the side of the road holding this medallion at the hight your head is while sticking out of the car window travelling at 200mph. let it hit your face and see which experiment caused the most damage to your face.
maybe a letter to mythbusters is the safer option tho.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Apr 16 2008, 08:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Gee they pulled that fast!!
It was a French coverage of the GP and showed a zoomed replay of the part flapping about and Stoners mid corner reparations.
I have noticed Motogp/Dorna must be getting onto the clandestine gp posters pretty fast these days
Damn, I wish I could have seen that. Mid corner?? Awesome, that shows some riding skills and some balls. And the whole time Melandri still couldn't catch him
It was a French coverage of the GP and showed a zoomed replay of the part flapping about and Stoners mid corner reparations.
I have noticed Motogp/Dorna must be getting onto the clandestine gp posters pretty fast these days
Damn, I wish I could have seen that. Mid corner?? Awesome, that shows some riding skills and some balls. And the whole time Melandri still couldn't catch him
Joined Oct 2006
25K Posts | 4K+
Your Mom's House
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bikergirl @ Apr 16 2008, 10:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>A few slaps yes, as pointed out. Hitting you hard enough to break bones no. And the dudes wear super gloves anyway. It's sweet to see you getting so worked up though
Typical debating ploy EXAGGERATION to distract the reader from what is a WEAK POINT. Did I say it would tear his hand & arm off?
So now we are introducing bones breaking? Hahaha. I'll take that as your having hormone issues. Sorry, just couldn’t resist correcting a physics trained rocket science engineer on a very basic and elementary issue. You know I still love you, well at least "like" sorta...
Typical debating ploy EXAGGERATION to distract the reader from what is a WEAK POINT. Did I say it would tear his hand & arm off?
So now we are introducing bones breaking? Hahaha. I'll take that as your having hormone issues. Sorry, just couldn’t resist correcting a physics trained rocket science engineer on a very basic and elementary issue. You know I still love you, well at least "like" sorta...
Joined Oct 2006
25K Posts | 4K+
Your Mom's House
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (roger-m @ Apr 16 2008, 10:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>ok mate. do the test you suggest then do this test and compare results. have a mate stand by the side of the road holding this medallion at the hight your head is while sticking out of the car window travelling at 200mph. let it hit your face and see which experiment caused the most damage to your face.
maybe a letter to mythbusters is the safer option tho.
Only the morons here are trying to compare these two very different scenarios. I’ve only mentioned what actually was happening when the thing was dangling, NOT hitting something stationary while traveling 200mph. (read my post and those making your case—which isn’t what happened anyway, so why even bring it up)…
Please tell me you're kidding or fishing...I think you'll agree with BC no matter what. (Dude, shes already pregnant man).
maybe a letter to mythbusters is the safer option tho.
Only the morons here are trying to compare these two very different scenarios. I’ve only mentioned what actually was happening when the thing was dangling, NOT hitting something stationary while traveling 200mph. (read my post and those making your case—which isn’t what happened anyway, so why even bring it up)…
Please tell me you're kidding or fishing...I think you'll agree with BC no matter what. (Dude, shes already pregnant man).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SackWack @ Apr 15 2008, 07:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>1. Stoner never claimed it caused him pain.
2. Ripping off was not an option, too dangerous to him and other riders.
3. He didn't know what it was. What kind of ........ is that? Captain has to know his ship.
4. Most importantly, he said that he needed to shove it in a spot but then the turbulence would just blow it back out. Did he finally get it into a stable spot when he started to slam down some pretty quick laps towards the end of the race?? Or was it still dangling and he just got used to it?
5. Nobody can rightly claim that if it had not been a hindrance that he would not have ben battling with Edwards, Hayden, and Dovi. Although his practice times appeared that he was off the pace. Coulda, woulda, shoulda...
6. Im glad this is happening, last year was just too perfet a season for Stoner. Now we are going to really see what he is made of when he is experiencing some adversity.
7. Let us also see what his fans are made of as well.
All good points.
At least when our man (Hayden) complains, he complains about a critical mechanical part like the clutch or the frame.
Stoner finished 6th because his Dorna camera fell off?
That's the difference between superbikers and GP riders. Maybe GP riders are faster, but they are also more embarrassing to root for. Ezy should make Casey race in a tutu for one round to teach him a lesson.
2. Ripping off was not an option, too dangerous to him and other riders.
3. He didn't know what it was. What kind of ........ is that? Captain has to know his ship.
4. Most importantly, he said that he needed to shove it in a spot but then the turbulence would just blow it back out. Did he finally get it into a stable spot when he started to slam down some pretty quick laps towards the end of the race?? Or was it still dangling and he just got used to it?
5. Nobody can rightly claim that if it had not been a hindrance that he would not have ben battling with Edwards, Hayden, and Dovi. Although his practice times appeared that he was off the pace. Coulda, woulda, shoulda...
6. Im glad this is happening, last year was just too perfet a season for Stoner. Now we are going to really see what he is made of when he is experiencing some adversity.
7. Let us also see what his fans are made of as well.
All good points.
At least when our man (Hayden) complains, he complains about a critical mechanical part like the clutch or the frame.
Stoner finished 6th because his Dorna camera fell off?
That's the difference between superbikers and GP riders. Maybe GP riders are faster, but they are also more embarrassing to root for. Ezy should make Casey race in a tutu for one round to teach him a lesson.
Joined Jul 2006
11K Posts | 291+
Texas
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bikergirl @ Apr 16 2008, 01:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I'm a physics graduate. And was always a consistent A student. It seems relativity is something that escapes most of you.
Must have been a poor school...in any case we aren't exactly dealing with relativistic speeds here so whether relativity escapes people here or not isn't exactly relevant.
I assure you that flow in one direction can generate substantial forces and motions perpindicular to that flow and build up some pretty substantial relative forces and/or velocities between two objects attached to the same body. Airplanes alone are evidence enough of that. Additionally, there's the great multipliying power of harmonic frequencies to consider - if you're hitting the right speed where any vortices shed by that thing hanging out in the breeze you can get some pretty wild movements. The classic example of that's probably the tacoma narrows bridge. We're talking about a damn bridge that destroyed itself by flapping up and down in the wind when shed vortices excited a harmonic mode. Powerful stuff. These bikes don't operate in a vaccuum, you know.
In the end it may or may not have been anything more than a distraction, but to say that it couldn't be due solely to the fact that both happen to be traveling forward with the same (large) forward velocity is a gross misapplication of physics.
Must have been a poor school...in any case we aren't exactly dealing with relativistic speeds here so whether relativity escapes people here or not isn't exactly relevant.
I assure you that flow in one direction can generate substantial forces and motions perpindicular to that flow and build up some pretty substantial relative forces and/or velocities between two objects attached to the same body. Airplanes alone are evidence enough of that. Additionally, there's the great multipliying power of harmonic frequencies to consider - if you're hitting the right speed where any vortices shed by that thing hanging out in the breeze you can get some pretty wild movements. The classic example of that's probably the tacoma narrows bridge. We're talking about a damn bridge that destroyed itself by flapping up and down in the wind when shed vortices excited a harmonic mode. Powerful stuff. These bikes don't operate in a vaccuum, you know.
In the end it may or may not have been anything more than a distraction, but to say that it couldn't be due solely to the fact that both happen to be traveling forward with the same (large) forward velocity is a gross misapplication of physics.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (roger-m @ Apr 16 2008, 07:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>ok mate. do the test you suggest then do this test and compare results. have a mate stand by the side of the road holding this medallion at the hight your head is while sticking out of the car window travelling at 200mph. let it hit your face and see which experiment caused the most damage to your face.
maybe a letter to mythbusters is the safer option tho.
MYTHBUSTERS RULES
And a very good comparison
maybe a letter to mythbusters is the safer option tho.
MYTHBUSTERS RULES
And a very good comparison
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mattsteg @ Apr 16 2008, 08:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Must have been a poor school...in any case we aren't exactly dealing with relativistic speeds here so whether relativity escapes people here or not isn't exactly relevant.
I assure you that flow in one direction can generate substantial forces and motions perpindicular to that flow and build up some pretty substantial relative forces and/or velocities between two objects attached to the same body. Airplanes alone are evidence enough of that. Additionally, there's the great multipliying power of harmonic frequencies to consider - if you're hitting the right speed where any vortices shed by that thing hanging out in the breeze you can get some pretty wild movements. The classic example of that's probably the tacoma narrows bridge. We're talking about a damn bridge that destroyed itself by flapping up and down in the wind when shed vortices excited a harmonic mode. Powerful stuff. These bikes don't operate in a vaccuum, you know.
In the end it may or may not have been anything more than a distraction, but to say that it couldn't be due solely to the fact that both happen to be traveling forward with the same (large) forward velocity is a gross misapplication of physics.
yeah yeah whateva.
fact is it was a little plastic box that probably weighed less than a pack of ..... if it were any more than that it would not have been attached by a bit of Velcro. looking at the vid barrymachine posted casey managed to re attach it in a second while riding the bike through a right hand corner. it should not have come loose and im sure they will look at better ways of fitting it in future. it did not affect caseys finishing position. casey was right to comment on it but not to much as it wasn't that big a deal.
ive sure read some funny .... in this thread, big words fool no one here.
I assure you that flow in one direction can generate substantial forces and motions perpindicular to that flow and build up some pretty substantial relative forces and/or velocities between two objects attached to the same body. Airplanes alone are evidence enough of that. Additionally, there's the great multipliying power of harmonic frequencies to consider - if you're hitting the right speed where any vortices shed by that thing hanging out in the breeze you can get some pretty wild movements. The classic example of that's probably the tacoma narrows bridge. We're talking about a damn bridge that destroyed itself by flapping up and down in the wind when shed vortices excited a harmonic mode. Powerful stuff. These bikes don't operate in a vaccuum, you know.
In the end it may or may not have been anything more than a distraction, but to say that it couldn't be due solely to the fact that both happen to be traveling forward with the same (large) forward velocity is a gross misapplication of physics.
yeah yeah whateva.
fact is it was a little plastic box that probably weighed less than a pack of ..... if it were any more than that it would not have been attached by a bit of Velcro. looking at the vid barrymachine posted casey managed to re attach it in a second while riding the bike through a right hand corner. it should not have come loose and im sure they will look at better ways of fitting it in future. it did not affect caseys finishing position. casey was right to comment on it but not to much as it wasn't that big a deal.
ive sure read some funny .... in this thread, big words fool no one here.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Apr 16 2008, 08:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Only the morons here are trying to compare these two very different scenarios. I’ve only mentioned what actually was happening when the thing was dangling, NOT hitting something stationary while traveling 200mph. (read my post and those making your case—which isn’t what happened anyway, so why even bring it up)…
Please tell me you're kidding or fishing...I think you'll agree with BC no matter what. (Dude, shes already pregnant man).
Continue diging Jumkie, this is hilarious.
Only the morons fail to see that this is the exact things that were compared and what bikergirl objected to in the start. That was an attempt to show how bad flapping electronics could be exemplified with flying rubber and stones from the tires of others vehicles. And as you said two very different scenarios.
When you want to make a fool out of others you might want to check what they actually argue against.
Please tell me you're kidding or fishing...I think you'll agree with BC no matter what. (Dude, shes already pregnant man).
Continue diging Jumkie, this is hilarious.
Only the morons fail to see that this is the exact things that were compared and what bikergirl objected to in the start. That was an attempt to show how bad flapping electronics could be exemplified with flying rubber and stones from the tires of others vehicles. And as you said two very different scenarios.
When you want to make a fool out of others you might want to check what they actually argue against.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mattsteg @ Apr 16 2008, 09:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Must have been a poor school...in any case we aren't exactly dealing with relativistic speeds here so whether relativity escapes people here or not isn't exactly relevant.
I assure you that flow in one direction can generate substantial forces and motions perpindicular to that flow and build up some pretty substantial relative forces and/or velocities between two objects attached to the same body. Airplanes alone are evidence enough of that. Additionally, there's the great multipliying power of harmonic frequencies to consider - if you're hitting the right speed where any vortices shed by that thing hanging out in the breeze you can get some pretty wild movements. The classic example of that's probably the tacoma narrows bridge. We're talking about a damn bridge that destroyed itself by flapping up and down in the wind when shed vortices excited a harmonic mode. Powerful stuff. These bikes don't operate in a vaccuum, you know.
In the end it may or may not have been anything more than a distraction, but to say that it couldn't be due solely to the fact that both happen to be traveling forward with the same (large) forward velocity is a gross misapplication of physics.
Oh, I'm sure it was a distraction, hell, I get annoyed by the strap of my bagster tank cover when it flaps in the drag, but a light weight electronic box dosn't have the airodynamics to start some serious high velocity flaping and that could clearly be seen in the race, and then it is hilarious to compare it to high density objects flying through the air towards a rider.
I assure you that flow in one direction can generate substantial forces and motions perpindicular to that flow and build up some pretty substantial relative forces and/or velocities between two objects attached to the same body. Airplanes alone are evidence enough of that. Additionally, there's the great multipliying power of harmonic frequencies to consider - if you're hitting the right speed where any vortices shed by that thing hanging out in the breeze you can get some pretty wild movements. The classic example of that's probably the tacoma narrows bridge. We're talking about a damn bridge that destroyed itself by flapping up and down in the wind when shed vortices excited a harmonic mode. Powerful stuff. These bikes don't operate in a vaccuum, you know.
In the end it may or may not have been anything more than a distraction, but to say that it couldn't be due solely to the fact that both happen to be traveling forward with the same (large) forward velocity is a gross misapplication of physics.
Oh, I'm sure it was a distraction, hell, I get annoyed by the strap of my bagster tank cover when it flaps in the drag, but a light weight electronic box dosn't have the airodynamics to start some serious high velocity flaping and that could clearly be seen in the race, and then it is hilarious to compare it to high density objects flying through the air towards a rider.
sigh
Jumkie go back to the beginning sweetheart. I wasn't the one who STARTED waffling on about broken bones. As babel said, get the whole picture. And pointless trying to blame my hormones. Even 9 months pregnant (trust you to bring that up) I can still kick a lot of ....
Jumkie go back to the beginning sweetheart. I wasn't the one who STARTED waffling on about broken bones. As babel said, get the whole picture. And pointless trying to blame my hormones. Even 9 months pregnant (trust you to bring that up) I can still kick a lot of ....
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mattsteg @ Apr 16 2008, 09:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Must have been a poor school...
It's been around since 1591. Yeah. Must be crap to have lasted so long.
It's been around since 1591. Yeah. Must be crap to have lasted so long.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Apr 16 2008, 02:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>but a light weight electronic box dosn't have the airodynamics to start some serious high velocity flapingWhat precludes a light weight box from having the "airodynamics" to start some serious flapping? Not sure who's making direct comparisons to hitting stationary stuff either. Weight matters, of course, but we're not really sure how much this thing weighs. In any case it's not quite a feather.
The aerodynamics involved with setting off flapping aren't especially precise and don't necessarily even involve the object that's flapping about much at all. All it takes is the right frequency. Sure, you can optimize to maximize or minimize such tendencies, but setting off the effect in the first place doesn't really demand much of anything. I could make a damn brick on a rope flap.
The aerodynamics involved with setting off flapping aren't especially precise and don't necessarily even involve the object that's flapping about much at all. All it takes is the right frequency. Sure, you can optimize to maximize or minimize such tendencies, but setting off the effect in the first place doesn't really demand much of anything. I could make a damn brick on a rope flap.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bikergirl @ Apr 16 2008, 02:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>It's been around since 1591. Yeah. Must be crap to have lasted so long.
Maybe they're still teaching 1590s physics?
Maybe they're still teaching 1590s physics?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mattsteg @ Apr 16 2008, 10:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>What precludes a light weight box from having the "airodynamics" to start some serious flapping? Not sure who's making direct comparisons to hitting stationary stuff either. Weight matters, of course, but we're not really sure how much this thing weighs. In any case it's not quite a feather.
The aerodynamics involved with setting off flapping aren't especially precise and don't necessarily even involve the object that's flapping about much at all. All it takes is the right frequency. Sure, you can optimize to maximize or minimize such tendencies, but setting off the effect in the first place doesn't really demand much of anything. I could make a damn brick on a rope flap.
The excamples were there and BG respectfully responded.
Regarding the flapping, what can I say. Check out the recordings around, not exactly wild flapping we see there.
What I ment with aerodynamics is that a clumpy box is not very likely to hit any resonace frequency. Sure we can't rule it out but it's not very likely.
The aerodynamics involved with setting off flapping aren't especially precise and don't necessarily even involve the object that's flapping about much at all. All it takes is the right frequency. Sure, you can optimize to maximize or minimize such tendencies, but setting off the effect in the first place doesn't really demand much of anything. I could make a damn brick on a rope flap.
The excamples were there and BG respectfully responded.
Regarding the flapping, what can I say. Check out the recordings around, not exactly wild flapping we see there.
What I ment with aerodynamics is that a clumpy box is not very likely to hit any resonace frequency. Sure we can't rule it out but it's not very likely.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Apr 16 2008, 03:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>What I ment with aerodynamics is that a clumpy box is not very likely to hit any resonace frequency. Sure we can't rule it out but it's not very likely.Why on earth would a clumpy box be unlikely to hit a resonance frequency? You keep saying this, but it's complete nonsense.
Joined Oct 2006
25K Posts | 4K+
Your Mom's House
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SackWack @ Apr 15 2008, 08:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>3. He didn't know what it was. What kind of ........ is that? Captain has to know his ship.
Gotta disagree with this one point Sacky. Sure he should know his bike (ship) to a reasonable degree. But during the race, while focusing and concentration every split second on the task of both racing and riding at the edge.... something dangling is hardly a conducive time to inspect it. It could have been any number of things, wire, sensor, cable, chip, fairing piece, etc.
I'm not sure why this is becoming a big deal here. If this .... would have happened to any of our own riders, says Rossi, or Hayden, I think we would not have been too pleased. (Had it been Pedrosa--well .... him).
Again, it doesn't sound like a whine to me, and I don't think anybody here is disputing that something dangling from your bike at that speed was at least distracting. When you consider that lap times are distinguished to the third digit of a decimal, then I think its reasonable to consider that perhaps it did play a role in a few laps.
Again, nobody here is saying it would have made a difference for a podium, but like you said, who really even knows. Its racing and .... happens. It not like when those posting up a picture of Rossi's tire, and seeing some indistinguishable on the image and then declaring, you see, his tires were to blame....
Well this wasn't even that imaginary to make a stretch, the ....... TV caught this thing dangling and him trying to put the thing back somewhere out of the way, which was probably a problem way before the cameraman even detected it and focused in. What is there to debate here?
When I've been on the track, just a funny sound while traveling in a turn at 110 is un-nerving, now imagine an actual piece of equipment dangling? ...., I'd say he has cause to be upset. Maybe its just that people are relating his little tantrum in his garage or his other comments about people interfering during he’s quals, some maybe he does have a bit of a whining tone, but in this case I think it fairly legit. Perhaps eloquence and humility is not his strong suit, but compared to his peers, well, it not like he's a total ........ That notoriety is reserved for Peders. (jk) not.
Gotta disagree with this one point Sacky. Sure he should know his bike (ship) to a reasonable degree. But during the race, while focusing and concentration every split second on the task of both racing and riding at the edge.... something dangling is hardly a conducive time to inspect it. It could have been any number of things, wire, sensor, cable, chip, fairing piece, etc.
I'm not sure why this is becoming a big deal here. If this .... would have happened to any of our own riders, says Rossi, or Hayden, I think we would not have been too pleased. (Had it been Pedrosa--well .... him).
Again, it doesn't sound like a whine to me, and I don't think anybody here is disputing that something dangling from your bike at that speed was at least distracting. When you consider that lap times are distinguished to the third digit of a decimal, then I think its reasonable to consider that perhaps it did play a role in a few laps.
Again, nobody here is saying it would have made a difference for a podium, but like you said, who really even knows. Its racing and .... happens. It not like when those posting up a picture of Rossi's tire, and seeing some indistinguishable on the image and then declaring, you see, his tires were to blame....
Well this wasn't even that imaginary to make a stretch, the ....... TV caught this thing dangling and him trying to put the thing back somewhere out of the way, which was probably a problem way before the cameraman even detected it and focused in. What is there to debate here?
When I've been on the track, just a funny sound while traveling in a turn at 110 is un-nerving, now imagine an actual piece of equipment dangling? ...., I'd say he has cause to be upset. Maybe its just that people are relating his little tantrum in his garage or his other comments about people interfering during he’s quals, some maybe he does have a bit of a whining tone, but in this case I think it fairly legit. Perhaps eloquence and humility is not his strong suit, but compared to his peers, well, it not like he's a total ........ That notoriety is reserved for Peders. (jk) not.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mattsteg @ Apr 16 2008, 10:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Why on earth would a clumpy box be unlikely to hit a resonance frequency? You keep saying this, but it's complete nonsense.
Because it has a shape that make the airflow too complex and without any disitnct direction. It makes the box twist and turn and change direction all the time. That's not exactly ideal to start a violent continous flapping. Hiting a resonance frequency isn't that easy. Mythbusters that were mentioned above, have tried without success
Because it has a shape that make the airflow too complex and without any disitnct direction. It makes the box twist and turn and change direction all the time. That's not exactly ideal to start a violent continous flapping. Hiting a resonance frequency isn't that easy. Mythbusters that were mentioned above, have tried without success
