Path: ...!news.roellig-ltd.de!open-news-network.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Extensive article on Rivendell and Grant Petersen
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2024 05:25:32 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <5ol7fjtbaukietpoljs1kkbqm5mgh1h5ig@4ax.com>
References: <hqjIO.327263$hKDf.37988@fx07.ams4> <l2h3fjdkfie6ht4dscca6n3ulq7thv0l0k@4ax.com> <vcsipj$2rfcq$2@dont-email.me> <blm3fj1rj43cu4465m83on9pq3ul18ir0p@4ax.com> <vcsmlk$2s44j$1@dont-email.me> <vct3ic$2tr2a$1@dont-email.me> <sls4fj914qnt9is0crvsd4dpli978v8ebt@4ax.com> <vcukup$37v5r$5@dont-email.me> <jvl5fjt14puvrscsra3jrjj2lgr22qhhdq@4ax.com> <vcuvih$39ji0$4@dont-email.me> <oq26fjpl0hc62vq4jpe50htdoavd26mcgu@4ax.com> <vcvr4o$3hhf0$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2024 11:25:35 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5eb9c425b7ef9598cde8cc2b3d0094c3";
	logging-data="3826151"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/2k2Tc2wG2iEPjp4a0C8/+Imn7JHQ+pns="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:uYsmAyTqnJCnFwLeGVIAED8sLpo=
Bytes: 5593

On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 22:05:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 9/24/2024 3:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 14:14:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> You might do well to read some of the archives of this group. There have
>>> always been people posting opinions that were factually wrong, and there
>>> have always been people pointing out those mistakes. As I've noted
>>> earlier, having mistakes pointed out is a necessary part of the process
>>> of education.
>> 
>> That's fine of the person being corrected understands that the
>> corrector is qualified to do so and is truly interested in making
>> things better. In my opinion, you fall far short of both those
>> standards.
>
>Your opinion on that matter is worthless. You don't have anywhere near 
>the background needed to judge technical proficiency. 

Riding a bicycle is not a technical thing, Dummy.

>Professional 
>Engineering licensing boards of two different states have disagreed with 
>you, not to mention those conferring my engineering degrees and those 
>institutions for whom I've worked.

Education is not an achievement, it's a tool. What you do with your
tools is what counts. You, apparently couldn't make it in the real
world where you get judged on your performance every day. You quit,
(or were you fired?) and had to come running back home to the halls of
education where all you had to be is not so terrible as to get too
many complaints from students and their parents. Then, safe in your
little tenured cocoon, you did nothing to improve yourself. You
performed the same monotonous job for the rest of your working life.

You have a terrible need to be seen as better than you really are, but
all you have to brag about is riding your bicycle.

>>> There are many examples of ideas that were posted frequently, and noted
>>> as wrong. Most of them seldom pop up any more - and not only, I think,
>>> just because there are fewer posts. I think people actually learned things.
>>>
>>> Examples of mistaken claims? Chains wear by stretching the metal. Old
>>> frames get "soft." Increasing spoke tension makes a wheel more rigid.
>>> Tying and soldering spokes makes a wheel stronger. Headsets fail by true
>>> brinelling due to impact loads. Hanging a bike by the front wheel makes
>>> the spokes stretch... and many more.
>>>
>>> BTW, what was that stopping distance from 20 mph again?  ;-)
>> 
>> 20 MPH would be maybe 9/10 feet if I didn't concern myself with
>> slamming the chain rings into the ground or doing a face plant on the
>> ground in front of the bike. 30 MPH would be a little further. Two
>> front brakes work better than one, especially when the rider's weight
>> is already more over the front wheels before he applies the brakes.
>
>Right, good one. There is no way you can stop your tricycle in 10 feet 
>from 20 miles per hour. That would require a deceleration of 43 ft/s^2 
>or 1.34 times the acceleration of gravity. IOW you'd need tires with a 
>static coefficient of friction at least 1.34, plus absolutely perfect 
>application of both brakes so that both wheels were at the absolute 
>limit of traction but not skidding. And you'd have to be in a "nose 
>wheelie" all the while, with your rear tire up in the air so every bit 
>of your weight was on the front wheels. It's essentially impossible.
>
>For 9 feet, your acceleration would have to be nearly 48 ft/s^2, and 
>besides absolutely perfect braking reflexes, you'd need tires with a 
>static coefficient of friction at least 1.48.
>
>And 30 mph would be _much_ farther, not "a little." The velocity term 
>gets squared in the relevant calculation, much as it does when 
>calculating kinetic energy.

Sorry, your opinion on that matter is worthless.

>I'm sure you don't know what a lot of that means. But what you're 
>claiming is practically impossible. Feel free to prove me wrong by doing 
>what you claim and posting video evidence.

<chuckle> Do you really believe I care what you think?

--
C'est bon
Soloman