Great short distancer runners but Mother Nature left out the brains!
wis...@yahoo.com
About It
by Jon Entine, Earl Smith
Here are some reviews of the book....
Is there a genetic reason that African-Americans dominate professional
sports?
Even raising the question seems tantamount to heresy. Jon Entine not
only
raises the question, he strives to answer it in Taboo: Why Black
Athletes
Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It.
Entine is no stranger to controversy, having worked with Tom Brokaw on
the
award-winning NBC News documentary Black Athletes: Fact and Fiction in
1989.
He's also willing to ask tough questions--and come up with answers
that anger
people on all sides of the issue. Entine starts off with some
statistics
indicating that African-American athletes are disproportionately
represented in
professional sports: for example, 13 percent of the U.S. population is
black,
but the NFL is 65 percent black, the NBA is nearly 80 percent black,
and the
WNBA is 70 percent black. He also examines cultural issues, laying to
rest the
long-held idea that blacks excel in sports because it is the only
avenue open
for advancement.
Some scholars cry foul at the idea that blacks are physically gifted,
seeing
this as a subtle way of saying that they are therefore intellectually
stunted.
Entine carefully argues that historically athletic ability and
intellectual
prowess were linked--with a positive bias. The "dumb jock" stereotype
is a
relatively recent construct--perhaps a defensive mechanism that arose
when
blacks began to participate on a level playing field and gain
prominence in the
sporting world. There's no reason to suppose athleticism and
intelligence are
inversely related; Entine quotes respected sports reporter Frank
Deford:
"[W]hen Jack Nicklaus sinks a 30-foot putt, nobody thinks his IQ goes
down."
The issue of physical superiority is further complicated by fears that
a
genetic explanation results in a belief that blacks don't succeed
because of
hard work, dedication, and drive, but rather (in the words of Brooks
Johnson,
who doesn't believe Entine's claims) "because God just gave 'em the
right
gene."
Is the fear of sounding racist hindering legitimate scientific
inquiry? Entine
believes so, noting that, "Anyone who attempts to breach this taboo to
study or
even discuss what might be behind the growing performance gap between
black and
white athletes must be prepared to run a gauntlet of public scorn,
survival not
guaranteed." Taboo is destined to make most of its readers
uncomfortable.
Hopefully this discomfort will serve as a wedge to open up discussion
of an
issue too long avoided. --Sunny Delaney --This text refers to the
Hardcover
edition.
From Scientific American
Few issues are as provocative and as poorly understood as biological
differences among the races. So loaded are statements suggesting
racial
superiority or inferiority that, for the most part, an anxious hush
surrounds
the topic. To his credit, journalist Jon Entine has tackled this
problem with a
no-holds-barred assault. Not shy about poking at the issue's softest
spots, he
goes after the history of sports and race science, the segregation and
integration of sports, racial breeding and... read more --This text
refers to
the Hardcover edition.
Book Description
Now in paperback, the book that jump-started a debate that shows no
sign of
ending. "Could well be the most intellectually demanding sports book
ever
written." -Washington Post Award-winning journalist Jon Entine's
Taboo: Why
Black Atheletes Dominate Sports and why We're Afraid t Talk About It
created
enormous controversy when PublicAffairs released it in hardcover in
the fall of
1999. Rarely does a book so highly lauded by critics also elicit
letters to the
editor so passionately praising or damning the author for even daring
to raise
a subject. Drawing on the latest scientific research, and addressing
all the
major sports of North America, Entine persuasively shows why biology
and
ancestry are significant components of the stunning ascension of black
athletes. He offers a gripping history of blacks in sports and a
fascinating
examination of the circumstances that have made addressing the facts
so
difficult and controversial. Artfully, and carefully, combining
science, sports
history, and sociology, Taboo has already proven to be one of the most
controversial and illuminating books in recent memory. Paperback
edition
includes new Afterword by author.
This book contains several diatribes against Christians. No other
religious
group is condemned. Thoughtful people need to be careful not to
finance
prejudice by buying books like this one. I found this book at my local
library.
When everyone is being so sensitive about issues such as race and
religion, why
would an author take such a risk? The answer is to be found in the
relationship
between the author and his subject matter.
<< He presents the genetic and anthropological evidence for the
dominance of
black athletes in some sports. >>
He is able to link the leading athletes from a sport to specific,
localized
regions in Africa. But the author has no scientific credentials. A
problem? Not
if he acts as a megaphone for the academic elites, the scientists who
do have
the credentials. He is forced to reference them hundreds of times. But
these
elites do not want to be seen as being racist. They have already been
pilloried
by their leftist academic peers for daring to study genetic
differences in
humans. And the author does not want to be a pariah of his liberal
friends in
journalism. No problem! He takes fully half of the book to present a
judgemental history, from leftist academic historians, of blacks in
sports. He
condemns whites ad nauseum, especially white Christians, and compares
their
supposed opinions 100 years ago to the moral standards of the present
day. One
wonders if the hateful opinions expressed in this book will be
respected 100
years from now, under the standards of the future.
ted
http://www.amren.com/ American Renaissance
@comcast.net Klaus Schadenfreude
>Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk
>About It
>by Jon Entine, Earl Smith
>
>
>Here are some reviews of the book....
>
>
>Is there a genetic reason that African-Americans dominate professional
>sports?
>ted
>
>http://www.amren.com/ American Renaissance
Is there a genetic reason why ted is afraid of black people? Or does
it have something to do with the night when his Dad came home and
finally told them that his mother had run off with a black man?
It was then Ted know, as he looked at his shriveled manhood-- a
genetic gift from his father-- that he was destined to envy the Black
Man for the rest of his days.
James
> Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk
> About It
> by Jon Entine, Earl Smith
>
> Here are some reviews of the book....
>
> Is there a genetic reason that African-Americans dominate professional
> sports?
> Even raising the question seems tantamount to heresy. Jon Entine not
> only
> raises the question, he strives to answer it in Taboo: Why Black
> Athletes
> Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It.
IMHO
While genetics is one varible, the main varible is money. Black kids
see sports as the road to riches that's availble to them. It doesn't
cost anything to run so most of the good runners are black. It cost
money to buy equipment so the high jumpers, pole vaulters, shot
putters, etc. are usually white. It cost money to use a pool so
winners in swimming are pretty white. Most quarterbacks in football
are white probably because they got a football to play with as a kid.
@comcast.net Klaus Schadenfreude
Nah, that's too simple a solution for ted. It's GOTTA be the
Jews......
_____________________
"Intellectual activity is a danger to the
building of character."
-Goebbels
wis...@yahoo.com
I researched the book quoted and note that Jon Entine is Jewish.
It's not a matter of money as much as genetics. We all except that
spaniels
and beagles are both dogs but with differant abilites and behavior
patterns.
ted
Tim Miller
No you didn't. You're too fucking stupid to read.
@comcast.net Klaus Schadenfreude
James
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:52:26 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>
>
>
>
> <kschadenfreude @comcast.net> wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
I still say it's money otherwise blacks would be flooding golf and
tennis too. They can't afford the green fees so all they got is Tiger
Woods and William sisters. Were there any blacks in cycling or canoe
events? Any event that requires equipment is absent of blacks.
Andrzej Rosa
> On Aug 21, 8:09 am, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:52:26 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
You make it sound like it is "either - or" type of situation. Either it is
only money, hence lack of black sailors or polo players, or it is only
genetic predispositions. How about both?
Anyway, football requires equipment and blacks are overrepresented there.
Blacks play for most of European countries even if they sometimes make less
than one percent of the corresponding population.
--
Andrzej Rosa
thedark...@hotmail.com
> It doesn't
> cost anything to run so most of the good runners are black.
Then how do you explain the black domination of the Equestrian events?
James
I've never seen a black in those events.
MikeWhy
>>>>> Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk
>>>>> About It
>>>>> by Jon Entine, Earl Smith
>>>>>
>>>>> Here are some reviews of the book....
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a genetic reason that African-Americans dominate professional
>>>>> sports?
I've heard it said that they have an extra muscle in the buttock or upper
thigh area. It's a small advantage compared to the difference between male
and female physiology. Every little bit helps.
Twibil
> >>>>> Is there a genetic reason that African-Americans dominate professional
> >>>>> sports?
>
> I've heard it said that they have an extra muscle in the buttock or upper
> thigh area.
Uh, and no doubt you heard it said by somebody who had absolutely *no*
knowledge of physiology.
No human beings of any sort have any "extra muscles" anywhere.
Vito
No human beings of any sort have any "extra muscles" anywhere.
That seems unlikely because there are skeletal differences that allow
forensic examiners to determine race even without a skull.
@comcast.net Klaus Schadenfreude
What seems unlikely is that you know shit about human physiology.
"Extra muscles." ROFLMAO. No wonder you guys sit around your
single-wides sniffing glue all day.
Tim Miller
muscle" between their ears, where a brain would be in a sentient
human.
@comcast.net Klaus Schadenfreude
wrote:
I forgot, too, about the rare "anal-re-routing" phenomenon, in which
the lower intestine empties instead into the cranial cavity of the
"extra muscle" crowd.
z
>
>
>
>
>
> <kschadenfreude @comcast.net> wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
there are definitely inherited differences between black and white
americans. for instance, many white americans have inherited huge
estates or banks or railroads etc. from their ancestors 150 years ago,
while black americans seem incapable of doing so.
z
some of the horses ae black. i believe they have an extra muscle.
z
i've seen that extra muscle blacks have on late night movies on cable
and it's pretty damn impressive.
MikeWhy
news:6c9ta4tudd3u34l03...@4ax.com...
> In talk.politics.guns "Vito" <vi...@xxcrosslink.net> wrote:
>
>>>"Twibil" <jose....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>No human beings of any sort have any "extra muscles" anywhere.
>>
>>That seems unlikely because there are skeletal differences that allow
>>forensic examiners to determine race even without a skull.
>
> What seems unlikely is that you know shit about human physiology.
What are you saying? That there's no physiological difference that would
explain a decided advantage in some sports?
MikeWhy
Oh, wait. Here's one:
[[Entine has put together a well-researched, relatively thorough and lucidly
written case, arguing that in many sports?particularly basketball, football,
and track and field?athletes of African descent show a competitive advantage
he asserts that "there is extensive and persuasive research that elite black
athletes have a phenotypic advantage?a distinctive skeletal system and
musculature, metabolic structures, and other characteristics forged over
tens of thousands of years of evolution. While people of African descent
have spent most of their evolutionary history near to where they originated,
the rest of the world's populations have had to modify their African
adaptations after migrating to far different regions and climates."
]]
Your turn, Pin Head. Go ahead and prove the negative.
Bob Myers
"Twibil" <jose....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0b2b5930-378a-424f...@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> No human beings of any sort have any "extra muscles" anywhere.
I would submit that we have more than sufficient
evidence of cranial cavities apparently being filled
by muscle or fat tissue, in the absence of anything else
to occupy that space.
Bob M.
Twibil
> "Twibil" <jose.now...@gmail.com> wrote
> No human beings of any sort have any "extra muscles" anywhere.
>
> That seems unlikely because there are skeletal differences that allow
> forensic examiners to determine race even without a skull.
Amazing. Simply amazing.
Your ignorance has no bounds whatsoever.
Twibil
wrote:
> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> > "Extra muscles." ROFLMAO. No wonder you guys sit around your
> > single-wides sniffing glue all day.
>
> Oh, I don't know. Some of those neonazi pinheads have an "extra
> muscle" between their ears, where a brain would be in a sentient
> human.
Point of order: you can't call it a muscle because muscles perform
useful functions.
Twibil
> there are definitely inherited differences between black and white
> americans. for instance, many white americans have inherited huge
> estates or banks or railroads etc. from their ancestors 150 years ago,
> while black americans seem incapable of doing so.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
He shoots, HE SCORES!
Twibil
> >>>No human beings of any sort have any "extra muscles" anywhere.
>
> >>That seems unlikely because there are skeletal differences that allow
> >>forensic examiners to determine race even without a skull.
>
> > What seems unlikely is that you know shit about human physiology.
>
> What are you saying? That there's no physiological difference that would
> explain a decided advantage in some sports?
He's saying that there's no such thing as an "extra muscle", doofus.
Duh.
Twibil
> >>>>No human beings of any sort have any "extra muscles" anywhere.
>
> >>>That seems unlikely because there are skeletal differences that allow
> >>>forensic examiners to determine race even without a skull.
>
> >> What seems unlikely is that you know shit about human physiology.
>
> > What are you saying? That there's no physiological difference that would
> > explain a decided advantage in some sports?
>
> Oh, wait. Here's one:
>
> [[Entine has put together a well-researched, relatively thorough and lucidly
> written case, arguing that in many sports?particularly basketball, football,
> and track and field?athletes of African descent show a competitive advantage
>
> he asserts that "there is extensive and persuasive research that elite black
> athletes have a phenotypic advantage?a distinctive skeletal system and
> musculature, metabolic structures, and other characteristics forged over
> tens of thousands of years of evolution. While people of African descent
> have spent most of their evolutionary history near to where they originated,
> the rest of the world's populations have had to modify their African
> adaptations after migrating to far different regions and climates."
> ]]
>
> Your turn, Pin Head. Go ahead and prove the negative.
Cute.
Set up a straw man, knock it down, and then invite refutatuion of
something nobody ever questioned in the first place.
Bigots aren't very bright.
MikeWhy
Cute.
------
Is that what this is about? Bigotry? I thought we were talking about Olympic
performance and phenotypic advantages. Never mind then.
S'mee
> "MikeWhy" <boat042-nos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:...
> > "Klaus Schadenfreude" <kschadenfreude @comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:6c9ta4tudd3u34l03...@4ax.com...
>
> >>>>"Twibil" <jose.now...@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>>No human beings of any sort have any "extra muscles" anywhere.
>
> >>>That seems unlikely because there are skeletal differences that allow
> >>>forensic examiners to determine race even without a skull.
>
> >> What seems unlikely is that you know shit about human physiology.
>
> > What are you saying? That there's no physiological difference that would
> > explain a decided advantage in some sports?
>
> Oh, wait. Here's one:
>
> [[Entine has put together a well-researched, relatively thorough and lucidly
> written case, arguing that in many sports?particularly basketball, football,
> and track and field?athletes of African descent show a competitive advantage
>
> he asserts that "there is extensive and persuasive research that elite black
> athletes have a phenotypic advantage?a distinctive skeletal system and
> musculature, metabolic structures, and other characteristics forged over
> tens of thousands of years of evolution. While people of African descent
> have spent most of their evolutionary history near to where they originated,
> the rest of the world's populations have had to modify their African
> adaptations after migrating to far different regions and climates."
> ]]
>
> Your turn, Pin Head. Go ahead and prove the negative.
Poor research technique OR he faked his data. I've refularly gone on
long hikes and road marches. Care to guess what people fell out
first? ;^) I give you a hint They guys over 30 did fall out. I mean
what is the problem people it is JUST a little 12 mile walk with a
minimum of 30# on your back, a M16/M4 in your hands, K-pot. Good gosh
you get a whole 3 hours to finish. Yes the road is anything but level,
straight or paved in anyway.
p.s. I could do it 3:05 BUT unlike most I would be good for another 12
miles.
--
Keith
giving racist the blood eagles wing for over 2 decades.
Vito
That's always the sign of a liar.
Vito
--------------------------------------------------------
Then why do bones differ between races, if not to offer different muscle
attachments?
Vito
Amazing. Simply amazing.
========================================
Well then, educati me. Why do African (and afro American) bones differ from
Euro bones enough that a trained examiner can tell the difference.
I'd hate to find that you don't know and are talking thru your ass.
Bob Myers
"Vito" <vi...@xxcrosslink.net> wrote in message
news:48af287d$0$19396$2318...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> ========================================
> Well then, educati me. Why do African (and afro American) bones differ
> from Euro bones enough that a trained examiner can tell the difference.
Educate yourself. Google is your friend.
http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~pbrown3/skeleton.pdf
http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/87/7/3047
Were you really thinking that racial distinction of human bones,
at least as far as it can be done, would have to depend solely
on gross structural distinctions such as would come from "extra"
muscles?
Bob M.
Benj
> > I've heard it said that they have an extra muscle in the buttock or upper
> > thigh area.
>
> Uh, and no doubt you heard it said by somebody who had absolutely *no*
> knowledge of physiology.
>
> No human beings of any sort have any "extra muscles" anywhere.
Come on. What about that extra "love muscle"? Clearly a domination in
that area.
@comcast.net Klaus Schadenfreude
I'm saying only a glue-fume-breathing idiot thinks black people have
"extra muscles."
@comcast.net Klaus Schadenfreude
[chuckle] And you're not, by trying to claim that blacks have "extra
muscles," is that right, mouth breather?
Twibil
> > No human beings of any sort have any "extra muscles" anywhere.
>
> Come on. What about that extra "love muscle"? Clearly a domination in
> that area.
(A) That ain't a muscle.
(B) Tell us exactly how you learned this. In agonizing detail.
Twibil
> "Twibil" <jose.now...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Dear Idiot, (I'd use another word, but at this point your stupidity
has just about run the gamut of descriptive words and I'm forced to
fall back on the reliable and prosaic.)
With the exceptions of mutants, *all* human beings are born with the
same number of bones and the same number of muscles.
Race doesn't affect this in any way, and the fact that some of us have
slightly differing bone structures is no more relevant to the question
of *how many* muscles a given human possesses than is the fact that
some of us have better muscular development than others.
Skin *color* differs, but still we are all born with one skin each.
Eye color differs, but except for occasional birth defects we all get
issued two each.
And in the same manner, we all get one digestive tract, two lungs, a
spleen, two legs, two arms, one head, yadda, yadda, yadda.
And yes; we all get the same number of bones, and the same number of
muscles.
Now I realise that this probably ruins the day of someone who's so ill-
educated that he's never learned that all human beings belong to the
exact same species, and that things such as number of bones and number
of muscles do not vary within a species, but look at it this way: now
you know better than to make a fool of yourself in this particular way
again.
But I have faith that you'll very shortly find *another* way, so cheer
up!
Vito
> "Vito" <vi...@xxcrosslink.net> wrote >>
>> Well then, educati me. Why do African (and afro American) bones differ
>> from Euro bones enough that a trained examiner can tell the difference.
>
> Educate yourself. Google is your friend.
>
> http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~pbrown3/skeleton.pdf
>
> http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/87/7/3047
>
> Were you really thinking that racial distinction of human bones,
> at least as far as it can be done, would have to depend solely
> on gross structural distinctions such as would come from "extra"
> muscles?
>
little related to Africans. A forensic MD I knew said that he could tell
the race of most skeltons by the shape of some bones noting that Radius and
Ulna were curved differently in Africans and Euros. I have no reason to
doubt that. And if bones are different it seems at least possible that
muscles are too.
Watch the Olympics. Note the different shapes of muscular African, Euro and
Asian asses.
Note that I am not making any judgement of good or better, just that
muscular differences seem to exist, at least to a non-expert.
Vito
>With the exceptions of mutants, *all* human beings are born with the
>same number of bones and the same number of muscles.
Oh, now I get it! Despite two doctorates (none in physiology) and an IQ
over 140, I am an 'idiot' because you cannot see differences beyond simple
numbers. Let me explain in a way even you can understand ... no, wait,
that's prolly impossible.
Vito
> muscles," is that right, mouth breather?
Sigh, I knew I should have worn a rubber when I fucked your mother.
Tim Miller
> "Twibil" <jose....@gmail.com> wrote
>> With the exceptions of mutants, *all* human beings are born with the
>> same number of bones and the same number of muscles.
>
> Oh, now I get it! Despite two doctorates (none in physiology) and an IQ
> over 140,
Say! I got MY dual PhDs in Cosmology and Quantum Gravity
from Cambridge at the age of 14... (that bastard Hawkings
stole ALL his ideas from me!) When I'm not working or
competing in marathon runs, I like to relax by playing
piano with the London Philharmonic (or with Billy Joel,
if I'm feeling in a more lighthearted mood). I'm also
a gourmet cook, a Formula 1 driver and a test pilot. My,
IQ is much higher than 140, however.
I love the internet... you can pretend to be ANYONE you
want here...
@comcast.net Klaus Schadenfreude
"So, unable to offer any information, you must resort to ad hominum
attack. That's always the sign of a liar. "
-Vito
[chuckle] You're not very bright, are you, boy?
Tim Miller
Hey man, he has TWO PhDs and an IQ of 140! (I'm guessing
that's in base 5.)
Twibil
> "Twibil" <jose.now...@gmail.com> wrote
(A) We were speaking exclusively of the number of muscles humans had
because you thought that blacks had an extra one. Now you're ducking
by trying to claim that the subject was "differences beyond simple
numbers".
Won't fly.
(B) If you *do* have 2 PhDs -which is highly doubtful although I've
known a few nutcase PhDs- that doesn't mean you aren't an idiot. It
might just mean you're a legacy student like Bush, who was
automatically awarded his degree at birth.
(C) Last time they ran me through the Stanford-Binet tests I scored
168, so your problem seems to be that I *do* understand your bullshit
perfectly. And am perfectly happy to call on it when you calmly state -
for instance- that motorcycles are steered by leaning and that
countersteering isn't really compulsory... (Which tells us that you
also don't have a degree in Physics.)
Twibil
wrote:
> Hey man, he has TWO PhDs and an IQ of 140! (I'm guessing
> that's in base 5.)
Hey! I *like* the "base 5" part!
May I steal that for the future?
@comcast.net Klaus Schadenfreude
wrote:
He got his two PhD's about a week after I discovered the cure for
cancer while I was orbiting Jupiter in my time machine.
Tim Miller
Help yourself...
MikeWhy
On Aug 23, 10:55 am, "Vito" <v...@xxcrosslink.net> wrote:
> "Twibil" <jose.now...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> >With the exceptions of mutants, *all* human beings are born with the
> >same number of bones and the same number of muscles.
>
> Oh, now I get it! Despite two doctorates (none in physiology) and an IQ
> over 140, I am an 'idiot' because you cannot see differences beyond simple
> numbers. Let me explain in a way even you can understand ... no, wait,
> that's prolly impossible.
(A) We were speaking exclusively of the number of muscles humans had
because you thought that blacks had an extra one. Now you're ducking
by trying to claim that the subject was "differences beyond simple
numbers".
-------
He didn't say that. I did. It seemed plausible, from casually observable
differences and given their performance in pro and amateur sports. I have no
reason to care or not care. Frankly, I don't give a shit whether they do or
don't. If you have a specific reference to share, either way, this would be
a good time to produce it.
>>>>>>>
(C) Last time they ran me through the Stanford-Binet tests I scored
168, so your problem seems to be that I *do* understand your bullshit
perfectly. And am perfectly happy to call on it when you calmly state -
for instance- that motorcycles are steered by leaning and that
countersteering isn't really compulsory... (Which tells us that you
also don't have a degree in Physics.)
---------
Seems to me, though, that the topic is you and your own ass muscle. It does
looks like we both agree. Yes, you are a bigger ass than the fastest
Olympian I watched.
S'mee
wrote:
SNIP
> I love the internet... you can pretend to be ANYONE you
> want here...
Oh yeah smarty pants? Try being yourself for a week! Forget that
brother it's almost broke me brain! Which is saying something as I'm
the guy who worked out the new long count calender that picks up on
12222012. I even have developed a formula to determine the rate at a
which a1952 Indian Scout frame rusts from the inside and where it will
rust through first (surprisingly it's not where you would expect)
But being one's self on the internet? Can't be done brother, can't be
done.
--
Keith
Twibil
> (A) We were speaking exclusively of the number of muscles humans had
> because you thought that blacks had an extra one. Now you're ducking
> by trying to claim that the subject was "differences beyond simple
> numbers".
>
> -------
> He didn't say that. I did.
Uh-huh, I know. And then he jumped in on your side.
> It seemed plausible, from casually observable
> differences and given their performance in pro and amateur sports. I have no
> reason to care or not care. Frankly, I don't give a shit whether they do or
> don't. If you have a specific reference to share, either way, this would be
> a good time to produce it.
You're either insane, a crazy-nuts bigot, *amazingly* uneducated, or
some combination of all three.
This "extra muscle" crap harks back to the "they all love watermelon
and white women" era, when the Klan was still trying to sell that good
old "They aren't really human, you know" stuff.
> (C) Last time they ran me through the Stanford-Binet tests I scored
> 168, so your problem seems to be that I *do* understand your bullshit
> perfectly. And am perfectly happy to call on it when you calmly state -
> for instance- that motorcycles are steered by leaning and that
> countersteering isn't really compulsory... (Which tells us that you
> also don't have a degree in Physics.)
>
> ---------
> Seems to me, though, that the topic is you and your own ass muscle. It does
> looks like we both agree. Yes, you are a bigger ass than the fastest
> Olympian I watched.
My goodness! I don't know *how* I shall ever recover from being
disliked by someone like you.
(Hint: it's pretty easy to judge a guy by the enemies he accumulates,
and I'm happy to add you to my collection along with Krusty and his
ilk. As yet you don't measure up to their outright bigotry, but you
certainly *do* show promise!)
MikeWhy
On Aug 23, 12:04 pm, "MikeWhy" <boat042-nos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> (A) We were speaking exclusively of the number of muscles humans had
> because you thought that blacks had an extra one. Now you're ducking
> by trying to claim that the subject was "differences beyond simple
> numbers".
>
> -------
> He didn't say that. I did.
Uh-huh, I know. And then he jumped in on your side.
---------
"Side"? As in, "I heard it also"?
> It seemed plausible, from casually observable
> differences and given their performance in pro and amateur sports. I have
> no
> reason to care or not care. Frankly, I don't give a shit whether they do
> or
> don't. If you have a specific reference to share, either way, this would
> be
> a good time to produce it.
You're either insane, a crazy-nuts bigot, *amazingly* uneducated, or
some combination of all three.
This "extra muscle" crap harks back to the "they all love watermelon
and white women" era, when the Klan was still trying to sell that good
old "They aren't really human, you know" stuff.
------
Cite, please. So far, it strikes me as no more out of place than eye color,
or even the number of fingers on a hand. Is an additional muscle so far out
of the realm of possibilities?
It's obvious you're not as smart as you like to think you are. Skin color
and gross musculature are phenotypic details, unchangeably fixed before
birth. Acknowledging them rates me no more a racist than observing that some
people are taller or smarter than others. Watermelons and fried chicken are,
what? Stereotypes? Cultural preferences? Surely, your big brain can
distinguish between the two.
> (C) Last time they ran me through the Stanford-Binet tests I scored
> 168, so your problem seems to be that I *do* understand your bullshit
> perfectly. And am perfectly happy to call on it when you calmly state -
> for instance- that motorcycles are steered by leaning and that
> countersteering isn't really compulsory... (Which tells us that you
> also don't have a degree in Physics.)
>
> ---------
> Seems to me, though, that the topic is you and your own ass muscle. It
> does
> looks like we both agree. Yes, you are a bigger ass than the fastest
> Olympian I watched.
My goodness! I don't know *how* I shall ever recover from being
disliked by someone like you.
(Hint: it's pretty easy to judge a guy by the enemies he accumulates,
and I'm happy to add you to my collection along with Krusty and his
ilk. As yet you don't measure up to their outright bigotry, but you
certainly *do* show promise!)
------
(Hint: it was never about you except in your own little head.)
It's even easier -- lazy is the correct word -- to pre-judge without factual
basis. You're a lot closer to that than anyone else writing here. As I said
earlier, we're no longer talking about Olympian athletes. It's clear that
you're your own favorite subject.
MikeWhy
> perfectly. And am perfectly happy to call on it when you calmly state -
> for instance- that motorcycles are steered by leaning and that
> countersteering isn't really compulsory... (Which tells us that you
> also don't have a degree in Physics.)
Oh, Goody! A countsteer thread. Please do continue! Here, let me start...
By "leaning", you can only mean by "weight shift alone". And yet, we've all
managed to steer the bike with our hands off the handlebars. Clearly,
countersteering is NOT compulsory. Or is it?
(And a degreed Physicist wouldn't confuse simple kinematics for physics.)
Vito
"Vito" <v...@xxcrosslink.net> wrote:
> Oh, now I get it! Despite two doctorates (none in physiology) and an IQ
> over 140, I am an 'idiot' because you cannot see differences beyond simple
> numbers. Let me explain in a way even you can understand ... no, wait,
> that's prolly impossible.
>(A) We were speaking exclusively of the number of muscles humans had
>because you thought that blacks had an extra one. .....
No, I did not. Somebody (you?) stated that all humans have the same number
of muscles. I said the seemed unlikely given skeltal differences and you
and several others went on a name calling binge. But, as of yet, nobody has
quoted a scientific journal proving "same number of muscles". Same number
of bones, skin, etc., sure, but not muscles. Care to try again?
>Won't fly.
>(B) If you *do* have 2 PhDs -which is highly doubtful .....
There you go again, short on facts, long on wind.
>(C) Last time they ran me through the Stanford-Binet tests I scored
>168, so your problem seems to be that I *do* understand your bullshit
>perfectly. And am perfectly happy to call on it when you calmly state -
>for instance- that motorcycles are steered by leaning and that
>countersteering isn't really compulsory... (Which tells us that you
>also don't have a degree in Physics.)
Since counter steering instead of leaning is compulsory, go ride a hack or
3-wheeler. Take it up to about 50 and give it some counter steer ... then
get back to me.
I said that leaning the bike is what makes a bike go around a corner and
that there are two not necessarily exclusive ways to make a bike lean. One
is by simply shifting your weight inboard as seen every day on the track.
Another is to (counter) steer the front end out from under the CG. The
latter is undesireable because it puts additional loads on the front tire
but it may be the only way to wrestle a poor handling, top heavy bike
around. Eddie Lawson was known to bend the bars on the UJM he won the US
super bike championship on but, gee whiz, he never had to do that on a GP
bike. SWMBO finished the last 4 laps of a race at Summit Point with one clip
on broken and the other loose dropping from first to third, so counter
steering made a difference but was hardly 'compulsory'. OTOH nobody could do
that on a UJM so I understand how folks who've never ridden a good handling
bike might believe counter steering is 'compulsory'. Some of them also
think gods live in Hawaiian volcanos.
Twibil
> ------
> Cite, please.
No, idiot, I'm not going to bother citing something that everyone else
seems to have learned in grade school. Google is your friend.
> So far, it strikes me as no more out of place than eye color,
> or even the number of fingers on a hand. Is an additional muscle so far out
> of the realm of possibilities?
Yes, idiot. Even people with six -or more- fingered hands are the
result of mutations. And as you'll recall I specifically excepted
them.
Blacks are not mutants, simply a mildy different race. (In fact, the
*original* race.)
> It's obvious you're not as smart as you like to think you are.
As the old joke goes; "I don't have to outrun the bear, Mike, I just
have to outrun *YOU*!". No problem there.
> Skin color
> and gross musculature are phenotypic details, unchangeably fixed before
> birth.
Uh, so are the number of bones you're born with. And surprise! All
human beings have the same number.
> Acknowledging them rates me no more a racist than observing that some
> people are taller or smarter than others. Watermelons and fried chicken are,
> what? Stereotypes? Cultural preferences? Surely, your big brain can
> distinguish between the two.
Idiot; by claiming that blacks have an extra muscle you seek to
distance them from other races. Make them "other", and thereby alien:
somthing to be feared and distrusted.
Q: Is this overt racism on your part or merely appalling ignorance?
A: I don't know, but it's pretty ugly either way.
>> > Seems to me, though, that the topic is you and your own ass muscle. It
> > does
> > looks like we both agree. Yes, you are a bigger ass than the fastest
> > Olympian I watched.
> (Hint: it was never about you except in your own little head.)
You made both the above statements in consecutive posts, so tell us:
were you lying the first time around or the second?
> It's even easier -- lazy is the correct word -- to pre-judge without factual
> basis. You're a lot closer to that than anyone else writing here.
Yeah. Sure. Got your ass in a crack, so attack the messenger.
> As I said
> earlier, we're no longer talking about Olympian athletes. It's clear that
> you're your own favorite subject.
Usenet ploy #4: When you can't defend your position, try to change the
subject by saying everything is the other guy's fault. See "got your
ass in a crack", above.
No score.
Twibil
> "Twibil" <jose.now...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a5553c26-dab6-4287...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > perfectly. And am perfectly happy to call on it when you calmly state -
> > for instance- that motorcycles are steered by leaning and that
> > countersteering isn't really compulsory... (Which tells us that you
> > also don't have a degree in Physics.)
>
> Oh, Goody! A countsteer thread. Please do continue! Here, let me start...
>
> By "leaning", you can only mean by "weight shift alone". And yet, we've all
> managed to steer the bike with our hands off the handlebars. Clearly,
> countersteering is NOT compulsory. Or is it?
Only if you want to be in control of your bike. But heck, don't let
*that* stop you; I'd purely *love* to see you try riding a motorcycle
across town without once touching the bars! And the folks at U-Tube
await your video with bated breath as well.
But since you're obviously ignorant of Vito's posting history -as well
as phisiology- you should know that he was claiming that it was
possible to lap a track on a racebike at only a few seconds a lap
slower than normal racing speeds *but without using any steering
input*; only leaning. He claimed his girfriend (?) had done so.
His statement came about when he contributed to a thread on what
beginning motorcyclists should know by claiming that beginners didn't
need to learn about countersteering until they'd already been riding
for several years, and *then* they could learn about advanced steering
methods. Meanwhile, leaning was all they needed.
Of course, if you're touching the bars -and the "riding without hands"
bit is red herring, as you well know- and both your feet are off the
ground, you're countersteering whether you know it or not.
Vito is now trying to pretend that we were speaking of sidecar rigs
back then, so the countersteering is moot... But of course he *still*
hasn't figured out that you can't steer a sidecar rig with pure body
english, so he's making himself look even more foolish than he did
before.
Twibil
> Since counter steering instead of leaning is compulsory, go ride a hack or
> 3-wheeler. Take it up to about 50 and give it some counter steer ... then
> get back to me.
Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance. I couldn't have done
better.
It isn't "countersteering instead of leaning" doofus: countersteering
is *how* you make the bike lean and therefore turn.
That you cannot grasp this simple fact tells us volumes.
Andrzej Rosa
> There you go again, short on facts, long on wind.
>
>>(C) Last time they ran me through the Stanford-Binet tests I scored
>>168, so your problem seems to be that I *do* understand your bullshit
>>perfectly. And am perfectly happy to call on it when you calmly state -
>>for instance- that motorcycles are steered by leaning and that
>>countersteering isn't really compulsory... (Which tells us that you
>>also don't have a degree in Physics.)
>
> Since counter steering instead of leaning is compulsory, go ride a hack
> or 3-wheeler. Take it up to about 50 and give it some counter steer ...
> then get back to me.
>
> I said that leaning the bike is what makes a bike go around a corner and
> that there are two not necessarily exclusive ways to make a bike lean.
> One is by simply shifting your weight inboard as seen every day on the
> track.
It doesn't work. Keith Code made a bike with fixed handlebars beside normal
ones. People were welcomed to try and steer the bike while holding onto
fixed handlebars, and it really didn't work at all. That is, with an
extreme lean you could induce a very slight curve. Body steering is a
confirmed myth.
> Another is to (counter) steer the front end out from under the CG.
That works.
> The
> latter is undesireable because it puts additional loads on the front tire
It's not undesirable. I guess that this comes from rec.motorcycles, but I
imagined that you guys were done with this kind of stuff years ago.
Anyway, your front will take it fine, even if you are really good and
manage to flip your bike under you from side to side in about 0.5 second.
The best guys can do it and its what it takes to load your front comparably
to hard braking.
> but it may be the only way to wrestle a poor handling, top heavy bike
> around. Eddie Lawson was known to bend the bars on the UJM he won the US
> super bike championship on but, gee whiz, he never had to do that on a GP
> bike. SWMBO finished the last 4 laps of a race at Summit Point with one
> clip on broken and the other loose dropping from first to third, so
> counter steering made a difference but was hardly 'compulsory'.
It is compulsory. There is no other way of steering a bike, period. Oh, I
have a sportbike (which doesn't steer any better than well setup UJM, or
any other kind of bike for that matter, but that's beside the point here).
> OTOH
> nobody could do that on a UJM so I understand how folks who've never
> ridden a good handling
> bike might believe counter steering is 'compulsory'. Some of them also
> think gods live in Hawaiian volcanos.
Man, you are simply wrong. I'm not surprised, because most of this stuff is
really not intuitive, but just try and wrap your head around it all, and it
actually makes sense.
--
Andrzej Rosa
Andrzej Rosa
Nobody could grasp this fact, before Keith Code. It's very not obvious.
--
Andrzej Rosa
MikeWhy
news:vt28o5-...@bakters.bandit.home...
> Vito wrote:
>> I said that leaning the bike is what makes a bike go around a corner and
>> that there are two not necessarily exclusive ways to make a bike lean.
>> One is by simply shifting your weight inboard as seen every day on the
>> track.
>
> It doesn't work. Keith Code made a bike with fixed handlebars beside
> normal
> ones. People were welcomed to try and steer the bike while holding onto
> fixed handlebars, and it really didn't work at all. That is, with an
> extreme lean you could induce a very slight curve. Body steering is a
> confirmed myth.
How absolutely fitting. The main topic is misinformation, and Keith Code's
BS Bike ranks at the very top. It demonstrates only the effectiveness of
steering dampers on bikes, nothing else.
If you have a steering damper on your bike, prove it to yourself by
disconnecting it and steering with weight shifts. You'll see that it is not
only possible, but very controllable. You can also demonstrate the opposite
on your 10 speed. Simply overtightening the head bearings so they bind has
the same effect as a steering damper. In other words, the BS Bike
demonstrates only that you can't overcome the steering damper using only
weight shift.
>> Another is to (counter) steer the front end out from under the CG.
>
> That works.
In fact, that's ALL that countersteering does. Any rotation of a free-body
must be centered about its center of mass. Motorcycles are not exceptions to
the rule.
The conceptual problem has always been one of cause and effect. Which is
cause, and which is effect? Leaning and countersteering are mechanically
linked by steering geometry. You can't lean without a corresponding movement
of the steering. More obviously, you can't just pull on the bar and not
cause the bike to lean.
> I guess that this comes from rec.motorcycles, but I
> imagined that you guys were done with this kind of stuff years ago.
One would think so, but the misinformation surrounding countersteering
continues to live on.
MikeWhy
On Aug 23, 8:25 pm, "MikeWhy" <boat042-nos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Twibil" <jose.now...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a5553c26-dab6-4287...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > perfectly. And am perfectly happy to call on it when you calmly state -
> > for instance- that motorcycles are steered by leaning and that
> > countersteering isn't really compulsory... (Which tells us that you
> > also don't have a degree in Physics.)
>
> Oh, Goody! A countsteer thread. Please do continue! Here, let me start...
>
> By "leaning", you can only mean by "weight shift alone". And yet, we've
> all
> managed to steer the bike with our hands off the handlebars. Clearly,
> countersteering is NOT compulsory. Or is it?
Only if you want to be in control of your bike. But heck, don't let
*that* stop you; I'd purely *love* to see you try riding a motorcycle
across town without once touching the bars! And the folks at U-Tube
await your video with bated breath as well.
--------
I take it you're conceding the point. We're now talking about the degree of
control, rather than the impossibility of control.
It is a stretch, though, to think you can remain competitive with a major
system -- any major system -- disabled. We were talking about minute
physiological advantages on one hand, not major loss of function.
Andrzej Rosa
> "Andrzej Rosa" <bak...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:vt28o5-...@bakters.bandit.home...
>> It doesn't work. Keith Code made a bike with fixed handlebars beside
>> normal ones. People were welcomed to try and steer the bike while
>> holding onto fixed handlebars, and it really didn't work at all. That
>> is, with an extreme lean you could induce a very slight curve. Body
>> steering is a confirmed myth.
>
> How absolutely fitting. The main topic is misinformation, and Keith Code's
> BS Bike ranks at the very top. It demonstrates only the effectiveness of
> steering dampers on bikes, nothing else.
>
> If you have a steering damper on your bike, prove it to yourself by
> disconnecting it and steering with weight shifts. You'll see that it is
> not only possible, but very controllable.
At slow speeds, preferably on a light bicycle, and even then you won't be
able to turn, just "change directions", so to speak. Real cornering is
simply impossible. Throwing your bike into corners quickly is so out of
question, that it simply hurts to even think about it.
And of course even done this way you still use countersteering. You just
try and turn your handlebars in a really inefficient way.
(There are people who ride bicycles at misc.fitness.weights, and all of that
is equally relevant to pushbikes, so it's remotely on topic, I hope.
Anyway, it's been boring here recently...)
> You can also demonstrate the
> opposite on your 10 speed. Simply overtightening the head bearings so they
> bind has the same effect as a steering damper. In other words, the BS Bike
> demonstrates only that you can't overcome the steering damper using only
> weight shift.
It's not true. Bike with tight head bearings simply doesn't steer itself,
neither on the straights nor in corners. If the front can't be turned
easily, you have an unstable machine, not the machine which goes only
straight and "doesn't want" to turn, which you try to claim. IOW, if you
leaned such a bike, you'd crash it, and that's it.
I could explain it, but somehow I doubt that I'm able to convince you, and
that any other possible readers really need to be convinced, so let's leave
it at that. Oh, I removed my steering damper several years ago. Still,
this freaking hog of an overengineered alloy takes a lot of muscles to turn
quickly at speed.
>>> Another is to (counter) steer the front end out from under the CG.
>>
>> That works.
>
> In fact, that's ALL that countersteering does. Any rotation of a free-body
> must be centered about its center of mass. Motorcycles are not exceptions
> to the rule.
They aren't free-body. They can't move their tires sideways. (Though that's
beside the point here.)
> The conceptual problem has always been one of cause and effect. Which is
> cause, and which is effect? Leaning and countersteering are mechanically
> linked by steering geometry. You can't lean without a corresponding
> movement of the steering. More obviously, you can't just pull on the bar
> and not cause the bike to lean.
But the problem with body steering is that leaning the bike into the turn
turns the handlebars "the wrong way". It turns them into the turn too.
Just try it on a stationary bicycle. You lean it right and the handlebars
turn right too. Now, if you try to push it forward, it will automatically
straighten itself. Bikes are designed to be stable, so they automatically
will steer straight, as demonstrated by this simple experiment. So, at
best, body steering is a very stupid way of steering you bicycle, barely
manageable way of steering your motorcycle at slow speeds and an exercise
in futility while attempting to steer you motorcycle at normal speeds.
>> I guess that this comes from rec.motorcycles, but I
>> imagined that you guys were done with this kind of stuff years ago.
>
> One would think so, but the misinformation surrounding countersteering
> continues to live on.
I gather that you are a hardcore skeptic of countersteering? I won't try to
convince you. I'm just surprised that some people would still actively
refute it.
--
Andrzej Rosa
Andrzej Rosa
>> Only if you want to be in control of your bike. But heck, don't let
>> *that* stop you; I'd purely *love* to see you try riding a motorcycle
>> across town without once touching the bars! And the folks at U-Tube
>> await your video with bated breath as well.
>
> --------
> I take it you're conceding the point. We're now talking about the degree
> of control, rather than the impossibility of control.
While you can somehow manage to control a bicycle with hands-off, the
control of a motorcycle this way is practically impossible.
> It is a stretch, though, to think you can remain competitive with a major
> system -- any major system -- disabled. We were talking about minute
> physiological advantages on one hand, not major loss of function.
You are wrong. If you don't countersteer, consciously or subconsciously,
you suffer a major loss of function of your bike, and you are a hair away
from a lot more suffering.
--
Andrzej Rosa
Scout
> MikeWhy wrote:
>
>>> Only if you want to be in control of your bike. But heck, don't let
>>> *that* stop you; I'd purely *love* to see you try riding a motorcycle
>>> across town without once touching the bars! And the folks at U-Tube
>>> await your video with bated breath as well.
>>
>> --------
>> I take it you're conceding the point. We're now talking about the degree
>> of control, rather than the impossibility of control.
>
> While you can somehow manage to control a bicycle with hands-off, the
> control of a motorcycle this way is practically impossible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2oDDAt9La0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9EaDXcVjrI
Bob Myers
>
> Nobody could grasp this fact, before Keith Code. It's very not obvious.
>
Keith Code was the first physicist? Wow, I had no idea....thanks!
Bob M.
Andrzej Rosa
>
> "Andrzej Rosa" <bak...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ldp8o5-...@bakters.bandit.home...
>> MikeWhy wrote:
>>
>>>> Only if you want to be in control of your bike. But heck, don't let
>>>> *that* stop you; I'd purely *love* to see you try riding a motorcycle
>>>> across town without once touching the bars! And the folks at U-Tube
>>>> await your video with bated breath as well.
>>>
>>> --------
>>> I take it you're conceding the point. We're now talking about the degree
>>> of control, rather than the impossibility of control.
>>
>> While you can somehow manage to control a bicycle with hands-off, the
>> control of a motorcycle this way is practically impossible.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2oDDAt9La0
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9EaDXcVjrI
Only a second one is relevant, as it contains turning. And it's a good
example. A guy is able to ride in a circle with hands off, but when he
wants to ride straight again, he grabs the handlebar. He obviously can't
control the bike with hands off. Sorry.
Anyway, riding with hands off is still countersteering your bike, just in a
very inefficient way. It works this way. When you lean your body into the
corner, your bike leans _away_ from the corner*. Once it leans away from
the corner, both bike geometry and gyroscopic forces will turn its front
wheel away from the corner too. IOW your bike will countersteer itself.
To a degree, of course. Rather small degree, unfortunately, and this
degree will go down with increasing mass of the bike and its speed.
Let me give you a practical example. The rear wheel on the bike of my
brother was once turned a little (one notch on the swingarm) and the bike
steered consequently right. It was a minute thing, which was hard to feel
on the handlebars until you made a conscious effort of trying to feel for
it, or let go of the handlebars. Just a touch was enough to correct for
this slight mishandling, but it took quite a serious lean to compensate for
it at speed. I mean _serious_ lean to the left. Anybody is welcomed to
try it for themselves. One notch off on a swingarm equals a touch on the
bars, or almost your full bodyweigh on one peg, or a lot of lean.
You just can't control your bike with your bodyweight. It's impossible.
*) The degree to which your bike will lean away from the corner depends on
the ratio of your mass to the mass of the bike, plus some change, but it's
not crucial here. Oh, it's called the conservation of angular momentum,
but it should be possible to grasp intuitively without mumbo jumbo jargon.
--
Andrzej Rosa
Andrzej Rosa
Physicists didn't understand how a bicycle handles. I remember being told
in school that it all is gyroscopic effect and precession, which plays a
part, but isn't really what it's at here. For example, it is still
possible to ride a bike built in such a way, that gyroscopic effects are
zeroed, though it isn't very easy, especially at speed.
Anyway, Keith never claimed to be the first guy to figure countersteering
out. He claimed to figure it out by himself (IIRC), but not that he was
the first. Here http://www.superbikeschool.com/machinery/no-bs-machine.php
he writes that Wright brothers found it out much earlier. Still, it was
Keith Code who popularized the concept and he deserves full credit for
doing so.
--
Andrzej Rosa
Andrzej Rosa
> Bob Myers wrote:
>
>>
>> "Andrzej Rosa" <bak...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:bi38o5-...@bakters.bandit.home...
>>>
>>> Nobody could grasp this fact, before Keith Code. It's very not obvious.
>>>
>>
>> Keith Code was the first physicist? Wow, I had no idea....thanks!
>
> Physicists didn't understand how a bicycle handles. I remember being told
> in school that it all is gyroscopic effect and precession, which plays a
> part, but isn't really what it's at here. For example, it is still
> possible to ride a bike built in such a way, that gyroscopic effects are
> zeroed, though it isn't very easy, especially at speed.
I hate to be wrong, so I checked it out. I found a more recent publication
dealing with how you steer a bicycle.
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~fajans/pub/pdffiles/SteerBikeAJP.PDF
"In any event, gyroscopic forces
play little role in leaning the bike over, through they do help
set the steering angle. The appealing notion that gyroscopic
forces are central to bike behavior, often repeated in
papers3,13 and textbooks,14 is incorrect."
So I was right in my critique of physicists, after all. (And I love being
right. It gives me warm and fuzzy feelings.) Once I'm at it, I was right
in claiming that body steering is countersteering too, just done in a funny
way. From the same publication:
"The complete hip-turn sequence [body steering] is similar to the counter-
steer sequence illustrated in Fig. 1, except that you initiate the turn by
throwing your hips left [by means of leaning your upper body right, hence
into the turn]. The bike leans left as well, and the trail steers the wheel
left. Centrifugal torques then lean the center of mass to the right, and
gyroscopic forces eventually steer the wheel right."
So, now everything is settled, right?
--
Andrzej Rosa
MikeWhy
> MikeWhy wrote:
>
>> The conceptual problem has always been one of cause and effect. Which is
>> cause, and which is effect? Leaning and countersteering are mechanically
>> linked by steering geometry. You can't lean without a corresponding
>> movement of the steering. More obviously, you can't just pull on the bar
>> and not cause the bike to lean.
>
> But the problem with body steering is that leaning the bike into the turn
> turns the handlebars "the wrong way". It turns them into the turn too.
>
> Just try it on a stationary bicycle. You lean it right and the handlebars
> turn right too.
For sure, if you tried it this minute, you'll see the front steers away when
leaned while stationary. (Which way do you turn the bars when you put it on
the sidestand? Why?)
> Now, if you try to push it forward, it will automatically
> straighten itself. Bikes are designed to be stable, so they automatically
> will steer straight,
We agree on this part. Bikes tend toward stability while in motion.
Mechanical and pneumatic trail conspire to do precisely that. Gyroscopic
precssion contributes also, also in the right direction.
>> One would think so, but the misinformation surrounding countersteering
>> continues to live on.
>
> I gather that you are a hardcore skeptic of countersteering? I won't try
> to
> convince you. I'm just surprised that some people would still actively
> refute it.
Huh? No. I believe it's impossible to transition a rider from a bicycle to a
motorcycle without teaching conscious countersteering. They lean, and they
cry, and they continue to go straight. The bug that gets up my ass is with
those who think motorcycles are bound by different physical laws. The mass
is larger, the speeds are higher, and the forces greater, but the same laws
still apply. A motorcycle steers the exact same way a bicycle steers. They
CAN be steered by weight shift alone. Code's BS bike hits that trigger
everytime.
Turby
wrote:
>...Once I'm at it, I was right
>in claiming that body steering is countersteering too, just done in a funny
>way. From the same publication:
>
>"The complete hip-turn sequence [body steering] is similar to the counter-
>steer sequence illustrated in Fig. 1, except that you initiate the turn by
>throwing your hips left [by means of leaning your upper body right, hence
>into the turn]. The bike leans left as well, and the trail steers the wheel
>left. Centrifugal torques then lean the center of mass to the right, and
>gyroscopic forces eventually steer the wheel right."
>
>So, now everything is settled, right?
No. You are flat out wrong. That quote differentiates between
body-steering and counter-steering and so should you. The results are
similar, in that the vehicle turns, but the input is entirely
different, and the act is entirely different, hence the different
nomenclature. Your claim is akin to "The Earth is round, many fruits
are round, therefore the Earth is a fruit."
BTW, since you have ignored my responses in rec.motorcycles, which is
the only newsgroup to which this thread is relevant, I can only assume
you are reading this in another group. Considering your ignorance of
the subject, I'm guessing that group is soc.men.
--
Turby the Turbosurfer
Andrzej Rosa
> "Andrzej Rosa" <bak...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ehl8o5-...@bakters.bandit.home...
>>> One would think so, but the misinformation surrounding countersteering
>>> continues to live on.
>>
>> I gather that you are a hardcore skeptic of countersteering? I won't try
>> to convince you. I'm just surprised that some people would still
>> actively refute it.
>
> Huh? No. I believe it's impossible to transition a rider from a bicycle to
> a motorcycle without teaching conscious countersteering. They lean, and
> they cry, and they continue to go straight. The bug that gets up my ass is
> with those who think motorcycles are bound by different physical laws. The
> mass is larger, the speeds are higher, and the forces greater, but the
> same laws still apply. A motorcycle steers the exact same way a bicycle
> steers. They CAN be steered by weight shift alone. Code's BS bike hits
> that trigger everytime.
Well, Code didn't try to prove that it's impossible to change direction on a
bike without actively pushing on the bars. He just wanted to show how
difficult it is, and he succeeded very well, I think. The problem is what
would you call "to control" a bike? For Code and for me, if you can't turn
it suddenly out of danger or into a bend, you're not in control. You can't
do any sudden changes of direction without countersteering even on a
pushbike, hence it is essential.
--
Andrzej Rosa
MikeWhy
> MikeWhy wrote:
>
>> "Andrzej Rosa" <bak...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:ehl8o5-...@bakters.bandit.home...
>>>> One would think so, but the misinformation surrounding countersteering
>>>> continues to live on.
>>>
>>> I gather that you are a hardcore skeptic of countersteering? I won't
>>> try
>>> to convince you. I'm just surprised that some people would still
>>> actively refute it.
>>
>> Huh? No. I believe it's impossible to transition a rider from a bicycle
>> to
>> a motorcycle without teaching conscious countersteering. They lean, and
>> they cry, and they continue to go straight. The bug that gets up my ass
>> is
>> with those who think motorcycles are bound by different physical laws.
>> The
>> mass is larger, the speeds are higher, and the forces greater, but the
>> same laws still apply. A motorcycle steers the exact same way a bicycle
>> steers. They CAN be steered by weight shift alone. Code's BS bike hits
>> that trigger everytime.
>
> Well, Code didn't try to prove that it's impossible to change direction on
> a
> bike without actively pushing on the bars. He just wanted to show how
> difficult it is, and he succeeded very well, I think.
http://www.superbikeschool.com/machinery/no-bs-machine.php
[[
No B.S.
At this writing, we have run nearly 100 riders of all experience levels on
this double barred bike. It has made believers out of every single one--in
the actuality of countersteering of course. Even at speeds of no more than
20 to 35 mph, no matter how much you tug or push or pull or jump around on
the bike, the best we saw was that the bike wiggled and became somewhat
unstable.
]]
> The problem is what
> would you call "to control" a bike? For Code and for me, if you can't
> turn
> it suddenly out of danger or into a bend, you're not in control. You
> can't
> do any sudden changes of direction without countersteering even on a
> pushbike, hence it is essential.
We're a long way already from "CAN'T", "NEVER", or "COMPULSORY". I'm happy
to leave it here.
Turby
wrote:
>Scout wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2oDDAt9La0
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9EaDXcVjrI
>
>Only a second one is relevant, as it contains turning. And it's a good
>example. A guy is able to ride in a circle with hands off, but when he
>wants to ride straight again, he grabs the handlebar. He obviously can't
>control the bike with hands off. Sorry.
>
>You just can't control your bike with your bodyweight. It's impossible.
You really shouldn't make claims if you don't know what you're talking
about. Stunt bikers can do figure 8s on one wheel. When they do, the
ONLY way they can steer is by shifting body weight.
--
Turby the Turbosurfer
Scout
> Scout wrote:
>
>>
>> "Andrzej Rosa" <bak...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:ldp8o5-...@bakters.bandit.home...
>>> MikeWhy wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Only if you want to be in control of your bike. But heck, don't let
>>>>> *that* stop you; I'd purely *love* to see you try riding a motorcycle
>>>>> across town without once touching the bars! And the folks at U-Tube
>>>>> await your video with bated breath as well.
>>>>
>>>> --------
>>>> I take it you're conceding the point. We're now talking about the
>>>> degree
>>>> of control, rather than the impossibility of control.
>>>
>>> While you can somehow manage to control a bicycle with hands-off, the
>>> control of a motorcycle this way is practically impossible.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2oDDAt9La0
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9EaDXcVjrI
>
> Only a second one is relevant, as it contains turning.
Sorry, but you're NEVER going to drive perfectly straight. Oh, and the NJ
turnpike isn't perfectly straight either. So clearly some amount of turning,
even if minor, is occuring in the first one.
> And it's a good
> example. A guy is able to ride in a circle with hands off, but when he
> wants to ride straight again, he grabs the handlebar. He obviously can't
> control the bike with hands off. Sorry.
Make up your mind. You complained that the first one didn't count because
the person was going straight, then you claim that you can't go straight
without hands making the first one valid in disproving your current
assertion. You need to make up your mind. Oh, and in the 2nd he does
straighten up without hands, the reason he grabs the handlebars is that he
wants to stop and needless to say you aren't going to stop until you pull
the clutch which is positioned where.....right, on the handlebar.
> Anyway, riding with hands off is still countersteering your bike, just in
> a
> very inefficient way.
On the contrary, seems a very effiicient manner since the less input needed
means a higher efficincy.
I will simply note that the issue wasn't countersteer, but your assertion
that riding a motorcycle without hands were "practically impossible"
Clearly it isn't.
Scout
> MikeWhy wrote:
>
>> "Andrzej Rosa" <bak...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:ehl8o5-...@bakters.bandit.home...
>>>> One would think so, but the misinformation surrounding countersteering
>>>> continues to live on.
>>>
>>> I gather that you are a hardcore skeptic of countersteering? I won't
>>> try
>>> to convince you. I'm just surprised that some people would still
>>> actively refute it.
>>
>> Huh? No. I believe it's impossible to transition a rider from a bicycle
>> to
>> a motorcycle without teaching conscious countersteering. They lean, and
>> they cry, and they continue to go straight. The bug that gets up my ass
>> is
>> with those who think motorcycles are bound by different physical laws.
>> The
>> mass is larger, the speeds are higher, and the forces greater, but the
>> same laws still apply. A motorcycle steers the exact same way a bicycle
>> steers. They CAN be steered by weight shift alone. Code's BS bike hits
>> that trigger everytime.
>
> Well, Code didn't try to prove that it's impossible to change direction on
> a
> bike without actively pushing on the bars. He just wanted to show how
> difficult it is, and he succeeded very well, I think.
Difficult? Hell, I've ridden a bike for miles along a twisting country road
and never found it difficult to steer while hands off.
>The problem is what
> would you call "to control" a bike?
Let's see. Staying on the road certainly counts, and staying pretty much
where you want to be on the road would absolutely count. If you're talking
Xgames or something then probably not, but control for all normal street
riding? Pretty much doable.
> For Code and for me, if you can't turn
> it suddenly out of danger or into a bend, you're not in control.
Well I can turn it into a bend, as that is on a bike a pretty slow turn.
Sure you're not going to suddenly preform radical manuvers but that hardly
means you're not in control.
> You can't
> do any sudden changes of direction without countersteering even on a
> pushbike, hence it is essential.
Yea, but you don't need hands to obtain countersteer. Shifting balance will
do that quite adequately.
Andrzej Rosa
> "Andrzej Rosa" <bak...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4159o5-...@bakters.bandit.home...
>> MikeWhy wrote:
>>
>> Well, Code didn't try to prove that it's impossible to change direction
>> on a bike without actively pushing on the bars. He just wanted to show
>> how difficult it is, and he succeeded very well, I think.
>
> http://www.superbikeschool.com/machinery/no-bs-machine.php
>
> [[
> No B.S.
> At this writing, we have run nearly 100 riders of all experience levels on
> this double barred bike. It has made believers out of every single one--in
> the actuality of countersteering of course. Even at speeds of no more than
> 20 to 35 mph, no matter how much you tug or push or pull or jump around on
> the bike, the best we saw was that the bike wiggled and became somewhat
> unstable.
>
> ]]
That's what they have seen on this particular bike. 30 mph is pretty fast
when trying to body-steer.
>> The problem is what
>> would you call "to control" a bike? For Code and for me, if you can't
>> turn it suddenly out of danger or into a bend, you're not in control.
>> You can't do any sudden changes of direction without countersteering even
>> on a pushbike, hence it is essential.
>
> We're a long way already from "CAN'T", "NEVER", or "COMPULSORY". I'm happy
> to leave it here.
The act of turning your wheel "the wrong way" is compulsory. I didn't write
that changing direction without pushing on the bars was impossible. It is
possible (I ride pushbikes too, after all), but it still involves turning
your bars "the wrong way". Now, if you define countersteering as an act of
pushing or pulling your bars "the wrong way", it isn't compulsory. If you
define it as just the act of turning your handlebars "the wrong way",
without necessary actively pushing or pulling on them, then it is
compulsory.
I mean, no matter what you do, in order to turn your bike you must make it
countersteer. You may achieve it the easy way by pushing or pulling on the
bars, or the hard way by shifting a lot of mass on top of it. In both
cases your bike needs to countersteer to initiate the turn, though.
--
Andrzej Rosa
MikeWhy
> MikeWhy wrote:
>
>> "Andrzej Rosa" <bak...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:4159o5-...@bakters.bandit.home...
>>> MikeWhy wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, Code didn't try to prove that it's impossible to change direction
>>> on a bike without actively pushing on the bars. He just wanted to show
>>> how difficult it is, and he succeeded very well, I think.
>>
>> http://www.superbikeschool.com/machinery/no-bs-machine.php
>>
>> [[
>> No B.S.
>> At this writing, we have run nearly 100 riders of all experience levels
>> on
>> this double barred bike. It has made believers out of every single
>> one--in
>> the actuality of countersteering of course. Even at speeds of no more
>> than
>> 20 to 35 mph, no matter how much you tug or push or pull or jump around
>> on
>> the bike, the best we saw was that the bike wiggled and became somewhat
>> unstable.
>>
>> ]]
>
> That's what they have seen on this particular bike. 30 mph is pretty fast
> when trying to body-steer.
You're kidding, right? You haven't ever tried to find out for yourself? It
steers fine at highway speed. ('02 Triumph Sprint ST. Any similar bike
should see similar results.) Put it in neutral, check and double check the
neutral light. A moderate hip twist changes lanes. Bounce it side to side in
your lane by weighting the pegs.
Andrzej Rosa
>>The problem is what
>> would you call "to control" a bike?
>
> Let's see. Staying on the road certainly counts, and staying pretty much
> where you want to be on the road would absolutely count. If you're talking
> Xgames or something then probably not, but control for all normal street
> riding? Pretty much doable.
I recently were in Romania. You guys are welcomed to try your antics
there. ;-)
>> For Code and for me, if you can't turn
>> it suddenly out of danger or into a bend, you're not in control.
>
> Well I can turn it into a bend, as that is on a bike a pretty slow turn.
> Sure you're not going to suddenly preform radical manuvers but that hardly
> means you're not in control.
I would say, that it means just that. Probably just because I live in
Poland, so I tend to expect the unexpected.
>> You can't
>> do any sudden changes of direction without countersteering even on a
>> pushbike, hence it is essential.
>
> Yea, but you don't need hands to obtain countersteer. Shifting balance
> will do that quite adequately.
In this case I meant countersteering as a rider technique, not a property of
the bike. Even on a pushbike sudden turns would require a conscious
countersteering technique.
--
Andrzej Rosa
Andrzej Rosa
>
> "Andrzej Rosa" <bak...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:net8o5-...@bakters.bandit.home...
>
>> And it's a good
>> example. A guy is able to ride in a circle with hands off, but when he
>> wants to ride straight again, he grabs the handlebar. He obviously can't
>> control the bike with hands off. Sorry.
>
> Make up your mind. You complained that the first one didn't count because
> the person was going straight, then you claim that you can't go straight
You can't turn, or "turn straight" in this case. Bikes can self steer both
on straights or while in corner, but you need countersteering to initiate
the turn, or to end it. That's what is difficult without actually turning
your bars by hand.
> without hands making the first one valid in disproving your current
> assertion. You need to make up your mind. Oh, and in the 2nd he does
> straighten up without hands, the reason he grabs the handlebars is that he
> wants to stop and needless to say you aren't going to stop until you pull
> the clutch which is positioned where.....right, on the handlebar.
It simply is not what happens here. I just looked carefully, and while I
don't say that it is impossible to turn with body-steering at such slow
speeds, it just didn't happen in this video.
>> Anyway, riding with hands off is still countersteering your bike, just in
>> a very inefficient way.
>
> On the contrary, seems a very effiicient manner since the less input
> needed means a higher efficincy.
>
> I will simply note that the issue wasn't countersteer, but your assertion
> that riding a motorcycle without hands were "practically impossible"
>
> Clearly it isn't.
Clearly we define "practically" quite differently.
--
Andrzej Rosa
Andrzej Rosa
>>> http://www.superbikeschool.com/machinery/no-bs-machine.php
>>>
>>> [[
>>> No B.S. At this writing, we have run nearly 100 riders of all experience
>>> levels on this double barred bike. It has made believers out of every
>>> single one--in the actuality of countersteering of course. Even at
>>> speeds of no more than 20 to 35 mph, no matter how much you tug or push
>>> or pull or jump around on the bike, the best we saw was that the bike
>>> wiggled and became somewhat unstable.
>>>
>>> ]]
>>
>> That's what they have seen on this particular bike. 30 mph is pretty
>> fast when trying to body-steer.
>
> You're kidding, right? You haven't ever tried to find out for yourself?
Of course I did. I didn't try to really corner it, though. I don't think I
will, too.
> It
> steers fine at highway speed. ('02 Triumph Sprint ST. Any similar bike
> should see similar results.) Put it in neutral, check and double check the
> neutral light. A moderate hip twist changes lanes. Bounce it side to side
> in your lane by weighting the pegs.
You serious? You mean that an ability to change lanes proves that you can
actually corner a bike, the way a racer crowd would consider a proper
cornering? People claimed that bodyweight shift makes up to 90% of their
cornering, and then all that they could do was to "shift lanes" and at
rather slow speeds too. No BS bike proved them wrong, didn't it?
And once we are at it, take a look at this text. He writes there openly,
that on a dirt bike body-steering is actually effective, for whatever
reasons.
--
Andrzej Rosa
Bob Myers
> Physicists didn't understand how a bicycle handles. I remember being told
> in school that it all is gyroscopic effect and precession, which plays a
> part, but isn't really what it's at here.
What makes you think that what you were told in school
has any bearing on the question of what physicists
understand? It MIGHT, depending on the qualifications of
whoever was teaching the class, have a bearing on what that
one person understood, or at least what they were able to
effectively teach. But there's hardly something magical in how
a bicycle handles that puts it outside of the understanding of
physics.
Bob M.
Bob Myers
> So I was right in my critique of physicists, after all.
You were? Then who do you think wrote that paper?
At most, you have shown something about the level of understanding,
or at least the teaching ability, of some who call themselves teachers
of physics. But it's nothing that wasn't known before.
Bob M.
Scout
> Scout wrote:
>
>>
>> "Andrzej Rosa" <bak...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:net8o5-...@bakters.bandit.home...
>>
>>> And it's a good
>>> example. A guy is able to ride in a circle with hands off, but when he
>>> wants to ride straight again, he grabs the handlebar. He obviously
>>> can't
>>> control the bike with hands off. Sorry.
>>
>> Make up your mind. You complained that the first one didn't count because
>> the person was going straight, then you claim that you can't go straight
>
> You can't turn, or "turn straight" in this case.
Sorry, but video evidence shows you are wrong. Clearly you can turn and
steer hands off.
> Bikes can self steer both
> on straights or while in corner, but you need countersteering to initiate
> the turn, or to end it.
So first you tell me you can't do it, then you admit you can.
You need to make up your mind.
> That's what is difficult without actually turning
> your bars by hand.
Oh, so it's not longer "practically impossible", but merely "difficult".....
Interesting since you just told me you "can't" turn hands free.
You really need to consider getting some consistency to your story.
>> without hands making the first one valid in disproving your current
>> assertion. You need to make up your mind. Oh, and in the 2nd he does
>> straighten up without hands, the reason he grabs the handlebars is that
>> he
>> wants to stop and needless to say you aren't going to stop until you pull
>> the clutch which is positioned where.....right, on the handlebar.
>
> It simply is not what happens here. I just looked carefully, and while I
> don't say that it is impossible to turn with body-steering at such slow
> speeds, it just didn't happen in this video.
I see, you don't say it's impossible, but deny the very video evidence that
shows that it is possible.
So tell me, how exactly why do you deny these videos? Are they not body
steering?
>>> Anyway, riding with hands off is still countersteering your bike, just
>>> in
>>> a very inefficient way.
>>
>> On the contrary, seems a very effiicient manner since the less input
>> needed means a higher efficincy.
>>
>> I will simply note that the issue wasn't countersteer, but your assertion
>> that riding a motorcycle without hands were "practically impossible"
>>
>> Clearly it isn't.
>
> Clearly we define "practically" quite differently.
Main Entry:
prac·ti·cal·ly
1 : in a practical manner <look practically at the problem>
2 : almost, nearly <practically everyone>
#1
Main Entry:
1prac·ti·cal
1 a: of, relating to, or manifested in practice or action : not theoretical
or ideal <a practical question> <for all practical purposes> b: being such
in practice or effect : virtual <a practical failure>
2: actively engaged in some course of action or occupation <a practical
farmer>
3: capable of being put to use or account : useful <he had a practical
knowledge of French>
4 a: disposed to action as opposed to speculation or abstraction b (1):
qualified by practice or practical training <a good practical mechanic>
(2): designed to supplement theoretical training by experience5: concerned
with voluntary action and ethical decisions <practical reason>
#1
So tell me what definition are you inventing?
Scout
> MikeWhy wrote:
>
>>>> http://www.superbikeschool.com/machinery/no-bs-machine.php
>>>>
>>>> [[
>>>> No B.S. At this writing, we have run nearly 100 riders of all
>>>> experience
>>>> levels on this double barred bike. It has made believers out of every
>>>> single one--in the actuality of countersteering of course. Even at
>>>> speeds of no more than 20 to 35 mph, no matter how much you tug or push
>>>> or pull or jump around on the bike, the best we saw was that the bike
>>>> wiggled and became somewhat unstable.
>>>>
>>>> ]]
>>>
>>> That's what they have seen on this particular bike. 30 mph is pretty
>>> fast when trying to body-steer.
>>
>> You're kidding, right? You haven't ever tried to find out for yourself?
>
> Of course I did. I didn't try to really corner it, though. I don't think
> I
> will, too.
Goal post move noted.
>> It
>> steers fine at highway speed. ('02 Triumph Sprint ST. Any similar bike
>> should see similar results.) Put it in neutral, check and double check
>> the
>> neutral light. A moderate hip twist changes lanes. Bounce it side to side
>> in your lane by weighting the pegs.
>
> You serious? You mean that an ability to change lanes proves that you can
> actually corner a bike, the way a racer crowd would consider a proper
> cornering?
No, it's proof you can body steer. Hello? Are you even paying attention?
Scout
> Scout wrote:
>
>>>The problem is what
>>> would you call "to control" a bike?
>>
>> Let's see. Staying on the road certainly counts, and staying pretty much
>> where you want to be on the road would absolutely count. If you're
>> talking
>> Xgames or something then probably not, but control for all normal street
>> riding? Pretty much doable.
>
> I recently were in Romania. You guys are welcomed to try your antics
> there. ;-)
Why? Is there some particular reason why the laws of physics are going to
change in Romania?
>>> For Code and for me, if you can't turn
>>> it suddenly out of danger or into a bend, you're not in control.
>>
>> Well I can turn it into a bend, as that is on a bike a pretty slow turn.
>> Sure you're not going to suddenly preform radical manuvers but that
>> hardly
>> means you're not in control.
>
> I would say, that it means just that. Probably just because I live in
> Poland, so I tend to expect the unexpected.
Come over to the US sometime, we have a wonderful interstate system.
>>> You can't
>>> do any sudden changes of direction without countersteering even on a
>>> pushbike, hence it is essential.
>>
>> Yea, but you don't need hands to obtain countersteer. Shifting balance
>> will do that quite adequately.
>
> In this case I meant countersteering as a rider technique, not a property
> of
> the bike. Even on a pushbike sudden turns would require a conscious
> countersteering technique.
Hardly. Ask a kid how he steers his bike and he's not going to tell you he
countersteers in any shape form or description. Why? Because it's not a
conscious action.
No wonder you have such a hard time with your bike when you have to
consciously perform every turn. Most riders simply learn to do them
automatically and without conscious thought, but then you did say you were
Polish.
Vito
>Yes, idiot. Even people with six -or more- fingered hands are the
>result of mutations. And as you'll recall I specifically excepted
>them.
>Blacks are not mutants, simply a mildy different race. (In fact, the
>*original* race.)
But Twibil dear boi, that means that the rest of us - Caucasian, Asian and
all - ARE mutants. In fact we are the result of 1000s of generations of
mutation. And, since we obviously lost some of the pigmentation in our
skins due to these mutations, isn't it possible that we lost a muscle or two
as well?? I don't know if we did or not but since it is possible I find the
ungrounded assertion that all humans have the same number of muscles
dubious. Show me a reasonable cite and I'll believe it but you cannot find
one, even on dogpile. So ....
Vito
> Anyway, riding with hands off is still countersteering your bike, just in
> a
> very inefficient way. It works this way. When you lean your body into
> the
> corner, your bike leans _away_ from the corner*. Once it leans away from
> the corner, both bike geometry and gyroscopic forces will turn its front
> wheel away from the corner too. IOW your bike will countersteer itself.
Sorry, no.
If your bike leans away from the apex when you lean toward it then you are
doing it wrong. Instead on planting your ass on the seat and swiveling your
hips, put your weight on the outside peg and shift your hips, etc, inboard,
reaching out toward the apex with the other knee (Like seen at the races),
and your outboard leg and knee will pull (lean) the bike in toward the apex.
At extremely slow speeds a bike is steered like a trike or car; by pointing
the front tire in the desired direction. At any greater speed, a bike is
steered by leaning its wheels to make their contact patches somewhat conical
instead of symetrical. the bike then describes an arc for the same reason a
top that has fallen on its side describes an arc. This is a fact no matter
what the volcano gods might say.
The question is how to get the bike/wheels leaned over.
This goes to a previous thread about how engine placement effects handling.
A bike must lean on its tire's contact patches. Any weight above a line
drawn between them acts as a pendulum to first resist leaning then to carry
one into the ground. The greater and higher the weight the greater this
effect.
One way to make a bike lean is to simply shift one's body and pull the bike
over. Problem is this is only effective on a bike with all heavy components
low in the frame like in a 2-stroke GP bike. It is ineffective on UJMs,
because they handle like a GP bike with a #27 battery strapped to the tank.
The other way is to steer the front tire out from under the bike and let the
bike's momentum throw it down - to wit, to countersteer. This is
undesirable on a race bike because it adds loads on the front tire at the
same time it takes weight off it.. However it is the only way to get a top
heavy pig into cornering stance quickly. For example, Eddie Lawson used to
actually bend the bars on his UJM Kawasaki to win the US Superbike title.
So, one can understand that people who have never ridden anything like a GP
or other good handling bike, but lots of UJMs, would believe that counter
steering is essential. After all, it was on everything they ever rode
OTOH SWMBO's GP bikes weighed less than half what even current 600 UJMs
weigh and all the major masses (motor, xmission) were below the axels so
simply standing on the outside peg and leaning in proved quite effective.
Did she ever countersteer? Sure. Not being able to slowed her by about two
seconds per lap on Summit Point, a fact UJM riders find incredible . But to
say that countersteering is manditory only shows that the person saying it
lacks experience. Worse yet, they have been brainwashed to believe that
current sport (stunt) bikes handle well.
The Formula USA crown once let Rich Oliver race his 250cc Yammy against
their liter+ hopped up superbikes at Willow Springs. He went into turn one
in about 10th place. He passed the two leaders at the top of the hill (turn
4) and was crossing start/finish when they entered turn 8 then coasted to
the win. That's the difference between a race bike and a stunt bike.
Of course he couldn't have embarassed them that badly had he not
countersteered.
Vito
>It isn't "countersteering instead of leaning" doofus: countersteering
> is *how* you make the bike lean and therefore turn.
> That you cannot grasp this simple fact tells us volumes.
Sorry old bean, but it's back to the reading comprehension class for you.
I'm the one who said that counter steering is ONE way to make a bike lean.
But it is not the only way except on poorly designed bikes.
Vito
>
> Nobody could grasp this fact, before Keith Code. It's very not obvious.
>
Hawaiian volcanos are the source of all human problems.
Tell me another one.
S'mee
> "Andrzej Rosa" <bakt...@yahoo.com>
Well... you know those oak trees in old growth forests?
--
Keith
Twibil
> But Twibil dear boi, that means that the rest of us - Caucasian, Asian and
> all - ARE mutants. In fact we are the result of 1000s of generations of
> mutation. And, since we obviously lost some of the pigmentation in our
> skins due to these mutations, isn't it possible that we lost a muscle or two
> as well?? I don't know if we did or not but since it is possible I find the
> ungrounded assertion that all humans have the same number of muscles
> dubious. Show me a reasonable cite and I'll believe it but you cannot find
> one, even on dogpile. So ....
So...just as with your complete misunderstanding of what
countersteering is -and how a motorcycle actually steers- you'll
continue to look like a jackass to anyone with even a *minimal*
education.
Fine with me.
(*News Flash* Ptolemy to the contrary, the Sun does *not* revolve
around the Earth. Thought you'd like to know the latest.)
Vito
"Vito" <v...@xxcrosslink.net> wrote:
> Show me a reasonable cite and I'll believe it but you cannot find
> one, even on dogpile. So ....
So...just as with your complete misunderstanding of what
countersteering is -and how a motorcycle actually steers- you'll
continue to look like a jackass to anyone with even a *minimal*
education.
There you go again .....
Twibil
> "Twibil" <jose.now...@gmail.com> wrote
Of course you're aware that Reagan was already suffering from
Alzheimer's when he said that.
So other than the fact that you can't think up your own lines, what's
*your* excuse?
Twibil
> At extremely slow speeds a bike is steered like a trike or car; by pointing
> the front tire in the desired direction.
No.
In tight turns you must add steering input in varying degrees simply
because the tire's geometry won't allow that tight a turn by
themselves. But unless you are supporting the bike with your feet
there is *no* speed at which countersteering -and physics- stops
working and handlebar steering begins: no matter how low your speed
you *still* have to steer slightly to the outside of a tight turn to
make the bike fall a bit towards the inside and initiate the turn.
Rob Kleinschmidt
> On Aug 25, 5:55 am, "Vito" <v...@xxcrosslink.net> wrote:
>
> > At extremely slow speeds a bike is steered like a trike or car; by pointing
> > the front tire in the desired direction.
> there is *no* speed at which countersteering -and physics- stops
> working and handlebar steering begins
Actually, there is on every motorcycle, a magic speed
at which neither steering nor counter-steering will
change the direction of travel. Move the handlebars
in either direction and the bike will either continue to
travel in a straight line or very occasionally, it will
simply explode from confusion.
Hope this helps.
MikeWhy
news:c44215f5-e419-41e3...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
No.
---
Standing still, the bike will tend to fall over. Tipping the bike requires
very little provocation, let alone countersteering. At some higher speed,
the bike generates enough righting force and tends to want to stay upright.
Countersteering at those speeds is one way to cause the bike to lean or tip.
Somewhere in between is a crossover point. Below that speed, any appreciable
tilt is unstable, since you can't turn tight enough to balance it with
centrifugal force. Steering geometry dominates in that region.
Tire geometry as well as camber thrust works at all speeds (of interest).
Late last year, we discussed here a technical paper on the dynamics of
motorcycle tires, published by one of the tire manufacturers. It's worth
looking up. "Normal" tire slip behavior contributes more than half the
lateral force until about 22 degrees of lean for that one particular tire.
It's an interesting read if you can find it.
I can't make sense of your message, other than you wanted to say more than
just "NO!" whenever Vito speaks up.
MikeWhy
news:JTZsk.17861$LG4....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Late last year, we discussed here a technical paper on the dynamics of
> motorcycle tires, published by one of the tire manufacturers. It's worth
http://mc.bridgestone.co.jp/pdf/mcintroe.pdf
Vito
So other than the fact that you can't think up your own lines, what's
*your* excuse?
My 'excuse' is that I am interested in information not swapping insults.
Since you have nothing but insults to offer .......