"Rohan said:
You are a slippery character.
Original thought there Rohan (aka Corium) :lol: Where did I hear that term "slippery" before? Not sure if there's a remedy for plaque on the brain.
Rohan said:
Say it, see the proof in the quote, then completely deny it.
Care to explain these words, oh wise one ?
Dances with Shrapnel said:
<snip>
Your commonly quoted motorcycle numbers continue to not add up as they defy the laws of fluid dynamics. Plug in the numbers and you will see or are you disputing the laws of fluid dynamics?.
Sure, my assertion quoted above is referring to your "commonly quoted" numbers below. And I stand by my assertion as your numbers are wrong in the context of the discussion as I very clearly stated. Did you miss something...again? Go ahead and plug them into the general equation of aerodynamic drag power and try and reconcile. It will be like that Abbot and Costello comedy skit of "who's on first"!
Rohan said:
it is commonly quoted that ~10 hp is needed to do 60 mph,and ~32 hp to do 100 mph.
Oh, and please tell all where we can find the 10 hp number that you allege is so "commonly quoted" in the Phil Irving Tuning for Speed graph that you are now so desperately trying to hang on to. I invite all to check this out as it is off the curve (almost off the chart
)- sort of like our dear Rohan (aka Corium)
Rohan said:
Care to explain these words, oh wise one ?
Postby Dances with Shrapnel
<snip>
Your commonly quoted motorcycle numbers continue to not add up as they defy the laws of fluid dynamics. Plug in the numbers and you will see or are you disputing the laws of fluid dynamics?.
These have been explained ad nauseam. This is part of your ongoing Rohan (Corium) subterfuge. Questions and doubt, questions and doubt. Sounds like a political part process.
Rohan said:
Already explained above. The analogy is a Dummkopft bringing a cricket bat to a golf game -I really don't think I can be more concise. :lol:
Rohan said:
Just for the benefit of future readers here, Phil Irving in the Tuning for Speed book states those "commonly quoted motorcycle numbers" categorically - in graphed format - that 30 bhp is good for 100 mph - for "Roadracing machines weighing about 300 lb".
Graph B crosses, very precisely at the 30 bhp and 100 mph mark.
Yes! Yes! Rohan is here serving humanity for the betterment of humanity! NOT! From what I can tell, Rohan is here for Rohan. Tell us where the 32 hp @ 100 hp shows up and especially in conjunctions with where the 10 hp shows up on the same curve. :shock: There is some wiggle room there Rohan so let's all wait to see if you take it.
Rohan said:
I have no idea what that quote of yours is referring to, if not this.
I stated these numbers 30 bhp for 100 mph VERY EARLY ON in this thread,
and a large part of the subsequent 'discussion' was based around these numbers.
Yet you manipulated quotes. If you do not know what you are doings, keep your damn hands and fingers off the levers and knobs!
From above:
I challenge you to show us all where I said that the 30 hp number was wrong. . I was having fun with this all the while and now realize I have been debating with a fraudster. So you invent things to support your arguments. This puts anything you have contributed on this forum into question, and same for going forward. You fabricate.
You having no idea seems to be the common denominator here dear Rohan. You smugly try to correct someone's statement (Jim Schmidt's) which was accurate with your
incorrect information. In a vain attempt to recover you quote some alleged "commonly quoted numbers" and are confused as to why they do not reconcile with the aerodynamic equations I cited. You struggle to understand why your "commonly quoted" motorcycle power numbers do not reconcile with the wiki automotive example (surprise - two wheels versus four; small versus big) I provided as references for you and others. In my naive attempt to enlighten you I steer you to Phill Irving's seminal works hoping you would figure it out, so you stumble upon the answer (sort of) and start quoting a single point (30 hp) (slithery switch) which so conveniently corresponds to one point of Phil Irving's intermediate curve. You then lamely try to bludgeon me by manipulating quotes to make it look like I was arguing about something I would have never argued about. I am sure I missed a few of your slithery steps but that last one is borderline fraud (though fraud requires a criminal element - what colony are you from Rohan?) :lol:
Rohan said:
So, shrapnel john, are these numbers good and valid.
Yes or no ?
With you Rohan, it seems to be which numbers at which point in time. :roll:
I have never had an issue with the qualified number of 30 hp (@ 100 mph) from the Phil Irving graph and I continue to challenge you in front of this forum to prove otherwise!
So tell me more about your commonly quoted 10 hp @ 60 mph and 32 hp @ 100 hp. As I stated earlier, there's some wiggle room, but not much, so we will see if you take it. Oh, and this is all in the context of aerodynamic drag
only so the two numbers you state are so commonly quoted must fit the equation for aerodynamic drag. Remember, most anyone can do the math and see your data set does not fit because you were cluelessly throwing these numbers out without an understanding of what they were comprised of.
As I stated earlier, this has been fun but I am disappointed as I have come to the conclusion that someone has desperately stooped so low as to try and manipulate quotes of others to save face..............or maybe he is that confused. Which is it?
