Wikipedia ommision
Guy King
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
has a glaring omission...no referrence to sheds.
Anyone care to write one?
--
Skipweasel:- Not to be sniffed at.
Thomas Rushton
> The Wikipedia
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
> has a glaring omission...no referrence to sheds.
>
> Anyone care to write one?
I'd love to, but I just don't have the time right now.
--
Thomas Rushton
Somewhere in Bradford...
Guy King
from Thomas Rushton <Thomas.Rush...@hammondsdirect.com> contains
these words:
> I'd love to, but I just don't have the time right now.
By this afternoon will do.
Thomas Rushton
> The message <Xns93B39015C2...@130.133.1.4>
> from Thomas Rushton <Thomas.Rush...@hammondsdirect.com>
> contains these words:
>
>> I'd love to, but I just don't have the time right now.
>
> By this afternoon will do.
Nope, sorry. Server software failure again (six times in as many
days...), and the guys that wrote the software are causing me to suffer
from moving-goalpost-itis, as they've changed "this is not recommended"
to "this is strongly recommended" on one of the changes they suggest
making. Which is rather odd.
AJ
"Guy King" <guy....@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:200307091...@zetnet.co.uk...
> The Wikipedia
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
> has a glaring omission...no referrence to sheds.
>
> Anyone care to write one?
>
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle
Nice one, I always wanted to know...
No really...
--
Lucretia - my other ride is a broomstick
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.493 / Virus Database: 292 - Release Date: 28/06/2003
Eddie
>
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle
>
> Nice one, I always wanted to know...
>
> No really...
Except it's wrong. I think.
<quote>
... the motorcyle remains upright when in motion by virtue of gyroscopic
forces.
</quote>
Ummm... I thought it was the rake and trail and wotsit that kept it
upright, innit? That is, as it falls to one side, the front wheel
automagically turns in the correct direction to compensate.
Actually, a quick glance shows that there's all sorts of stuff in that
article that could be argued about, but who can be arsed: "I read it on
the web, so it must be true."
--
Eddie mailto:ed...@deguello.org
Ace
>AJ wrote:
>>
>> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle
>>
>> Nice one, I always wanted to know...
>>
>> No really...
>
>Except it's wrong. I think.
>
><quote>
>... the motorcyle remains upright when in motion by virtue of gyroscopic
>forces.
></quote>
>
>Ummm... I thought it was the rake and trail and wotsit that kept it
>upright, innit? That is, as it falls to one side, the front wheel
>automagically turns in the correct direction to compensate.
That's true at slow speeds, but the gyroscopic effect is much more
significant the higher the speed becomes (and the heavier the wheel).
This is also true for countersteering (as also mentioned on the above
page).
>Actually, a quick glance shows that there's all sorts of stuff in that
>article that could be argued about, but who can be arsed: "I read it on
>the web, so it must be true."
It all seems pretty spot-on to me, although I couldn't be arsed to
read it all in detail.
--
Ace (bruce dot rogers at roche dot com)
GSX-R1000K3, CB400F2
BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, UKRMSPC#1, DFV#8
Eddie
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:26:32 +0100, Eddie <ed...@deguello.org> wrote:
>
>>Ummm... I thought it was the rake and trail and wotsit that kept it
>>upright, innit? That is, as it falls to one side, the front wheel
>>automagically turns in the correct direction to compensate.
>
> That's true at slow speeds, but the gyroscopic effect is much more
> significant the higher the speed becomes (and the heavier the wheel).
> This is also true for countersteering (as also mentioned on the above
> page).
(Cool - I bet myself a pint it would be you or Simian that replied to
this first. *slurp*)
Anyway, yes... but just saying "gyroscopic forces keep the bike upright"
is a bit all-encompassing. And without the rake and trail, the
countersteering wouldn't work anyway.
>>Actually, a quick glance shows that there's all sorts of stuff in that
>>article that could be argued about, but who can be arsed: "I read it on
>>the web, so it must be true."
>
> It all seems pretty spot-on to me, although I couldn't be arsed to
> read it all in detail.
It seems to be full of unnecessary generalisations and a few basic
errors. But hey, you get what you pay for.
Oh, and: "carbureators"
--
Eddie mailto:ed...@deguello.org
Ace
>Ace wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:26:32 +0100, Eddie <ed...@deguello.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Ummm... I thought it was the rake and trail and wotsit that kept it
>>>upright, innit? That is, as it falls to one side, the front wheel
>>>automagically turns in the correct direction to compensate.
>>
>> That's true at slow speeds, but the gyroscopic effect is much more
>> significant the higher the speed becomes (and the heavier the wheel).
>> This is also true for countersteering (as also mentioned on the above
>> page).
>
>(Cool - I bet myself a pint it would be you or Simian that replied to
>this first. *slurp*)
You owe me one then :-)
>Anyway, yes... but just saying "gyroscopic forces keep the bike upright"
>is a bit all-encompassing. And without the rake and trail, the
>countersteering wouldn't work anyway.
True.
>It seems to be full of unnecessary generalisations and a few basic
>errors. But hey, you get what you pay for.
OK furry muff.
>Oh, and: "carbureators"
Yukk.
Steve
> >Ace wrote:
> >It seems to be full of unnecessary generalisations and a few basic
> >errors. But hey, you get what you pay for.
>
> OK furry muff.
>
> >Oh, and: "carbureators"
>
> Yukk.
>
It's a Wikipedia; if you don't think it's accurate then you can change the
entry for "Motorcycle" and enlighten the world. Just click "edit page" at
the top, that's what it's for!
--
Steve
'02 YZF-R6
'98 YZF-600R
Carl .LHS. Williams
>AJ wrote:
>>
>> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle
>>
>> Nice one, I always wanted to know...
>>
>> No really...
>
>Except it's wrong. I think.
>
><quote>
>... the motorcyle remains upright when in motion by virtue of gyroscopic
>forces.
></quote>
Oh not that old chestnut?
>Ummm... I thought it was the rake and trail and wotsit that kept it
>upright, innit? That is, as it falls to one side, the front wheel
>automagically turns in the correct direction to compensate.
Aye. Not much gyroscopic force at 2mph, but I can still ride at
2mph without falling over.
>
>Actually, a quick glance shows that there's all sorts of stuff in that
>article that could be argued about, but who can be arsed: "I read it on
>the web, so it must be true."
This gyroscopic obllocks allus gets
trotted out to "explain" motorbikes, wot are quite easily explained
by a bit of guvaxvat about the dynamics.
>--
>Eddie mailto:ed...@deguello.org
You that chap in the space-time continuum, then?
--
,-------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Carl Williams, e-mail to <carl at : MAG #106893 : Yon Net |
| yon-net dot demon dot co dot uk> : JBC : Leveraging neology |
` Tory Party Sponsor favours air base '
Carl .LHS. Williams
That's me, that is. Must cut down, turning into a lardarse.
--
,-------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Carl Williams, e-mail to <carl at : MAG #106893 : Yon Net |
| yon-net dot demon dot co dot uk> : JBC : Leveraging neology |
` Number 10 import weapons grade airport '