it started with "it pulls 100MPH at only 1/2 throttle"

Status
Not open for further replies.
you also either have a case or main point to make, or not

you said ..& lots more
We are just going round and round in circles here. If 90% of those extraneous posts from everyone were deleted, it would make good clean reading.
Click to expand...

so state/make your case?
 
84ok said:
pls elaborate
Only if I get paid for it !
All about the rates of change of 'stuff'.
Unless you wanna use them for something specific, thats probably enough.

There are webpages and discussion groups about such intricacies, if you need a cure for insomnia.
(I'm sure they are really important, really I do).
(A lot of higher engineering does thrive on it.)
Things are rarely static, so understanding and calculating how they might operate dynamically is all part of the bigger picture.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
84ok said:
you also either have a case or main point to make, or not

you said ..& lots more
We are just going round and round in circles here. If 90% of those extraneous posts from everyone were deleted, it would make good clean reading.
Click to expand...

so state/make your case?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you expect ?

Deleting all the junk posts is a fairly straightforward remark, although I expect that LAB has better things to do.
It makes entertaining reading -if anyone is looking for cheap entertainment - and can see through all the guff and pick out all the important stuff. That is what 'discussion groups', 'forums' etc are all about, after all.

If you want a perfect technical treatise, I'd recommend "Tuning for Speed". And also "Motorcycle Engineering".
They were the motorcyclists bibles for anyone wanting some technical insights, along with a smattering of such stuff in the weekly motorcycle magazines - the green un and blue un.
 
84ok said:
what was the main point/argument/disagreement? just cube vs square?
Click to expand...
Dances with Shrapnel said:
Pretty much.
Click to expand...

And then whether 30 hp for 100 mph was 'wrong' or not.
That was good for more, much more.....
 
Rohan said:
84ok said:
what was the main point/argument/disagreement? just cube vs square?
Click to expand...
Dances with Shrapnel said:
Pretty much.
Click to expand...

And then whether 30 hp for 100 mph was 'wrong' or not.
That was good for more, much more.....
Click to expand...

Good for much much more? Remember my comment about pounding sand in someone's ear and watching sadly as it dribbles out the other ear.

Someone starts by confusing wind resistance with power to overcome wind resistances. The same someone introduces numbers (10 hp, 30 hp, etc...) that don't fit the bill (orangutans to oranges) and he has no sense of what the numbers are based on nor where they came from and is confused as to why they don't fit the wiki reference. This is analogous to claiming that crankshaft horsepower only needs to overcome wind (drag) resistance when in fact there is more to it. I give a clue by suggesting he read up a bit on Phil Irving's analysis of wind resistance and power to overcome wind resistance which is consistent with a wiki reference as well as most other reputable references. The book clearly explains and illustrates same. Apparently, this someone chewed on the corners of the book cover and only looked at the pictures without reading and understanding because Phil Irving goes on to make the distinction between wind drag power and wind drag power and rolling resistance. And now we have a self-exclaimed Eureka! for he alone has found the truth! ........when it was there in plain sight all along.

In an ongoing effort to spoon feed you, the 30 hp for 100 mph is an example intermediate number accounting for a rolling resistance as well as a typical (back then) aerodynamic characteristic (Coefficient of drag and frontal area) for a motorcycle. It incorporated a rolling resistance of 2% which Mr. Irving deemed "a good average figure to employ". As best as I can tell the chart in Phil Irving's book does not account for chain losses nor gearbox losses nor primary drive losses so it is yet an incomplete picture of total engine power required to propel a given motorcycle at speed.

Have we stopped the sand dribble yet?
 
C'mon Guys, these posts are supposed to be informative.

State your case, then let it be. Ultimately, each reader has to decide, based on information, facts, opinion, hearsay, and witchcraft, what or which, bit of information he accepts.

As a former University Professor, I readily know how tempting and and justifiable it is to correct a student's misconception, but this forum is not a classroom, and the students are a bit unruly!

Slick
 
Dances with Shrapnel said:
...Burn the witch! :D
Click to expand...
If memory serves me right, first you have to check whether she's heavier than a duck 8)
 
You have started me wondering about what speeds commando-based race bikes get up to on big circuits. Is there a speed measuring device on Daytona ? I fell off once at top speed on Phillip Island when I locked a drum brake. Any crash there is usually a biggie because most of the bends leading onto the straights are high speed and some are a bit down-hill.
 
Rohan said:
And then whether 30 hp for 100 mph was 'wrong' or not.
That was good for more, much more.....
Click to expand...
Dances with Shrapnel said:
Good for much much more? Remember my comment about pounding sand in someone's ear and watching sadly as it dribbles out the other ear.
Click to expand...

May we POLITELY remind you that you were claiming there that the 30 hp for 100 mph motorcycles was WRONG. !!!
When it is clearly spelled out in Tuning for Speed - book.
That data point for motorcycles has been much used for many many decades.
Some of us might consider that some of the "sand was dribbling out your ears", to use your charming style.

And which style puts folks off this forum, as has already been pointed out to you here....
 
acotrel said:
You have started me wondering about what speeds commando-based race bikes get up to on big circuits. Is there a speed measuring device on Daytona ? I fell off once at top speed on Phillip Island when I locked a drum brake. Any crash there is usually a biggie because most of the bends leading onto the straights are high speed and some are a bit down-hill.
Click to expand...

Daytona is not a complicated circuit, and is terribly fast of course, the lap times would have to give a fair indication of speed - if there are no slow corners, you won't be going slow anywhere !
A previous thread here on this mentioned a 150 mph Commando, didn't it ?
The sidevalve Harleys were said to be doing 165 towards the end of their career too. (?).

Dunno what this to do with 100 at half throttle though.
 
Rohan said:
Rohan said:
And then whether 30 hp for 100 mph was 'wrong' or not.
That was good for more, much more.....
Click to expand...
Dances with Shrapnel said:
Good for much much more? Remember my comment about pounding sand in someone's ear and watching sadly as it dribbles out the other ear.
Click to expand...

May we POLITELY remind you that you were claiming there that the 30 hp for 100 mph motorcycles was WRONG. !!! (Rohanism)
When it is clearly spelled out in Tuning for Speed - book.
That data point for motorcycles has been much used for many many decades.
Some of us might consider that some of the "sand was dribbling out your ears", to use your charming style.

And which style puts folks off this forum, as has already been pointed out to you here....
Click to expand...
Some Rohanism gems here. When you state "we" above, you must have a mouse in your pocket.

Moving on to give you some closure and clarity where:
Rohansim said:
it is commonly quoted that ~10 hp is needed to do 60 mph,and ~32 hp to do 100 mph
Click to expand...
to which I responded to many moons ago:
Dances with Shrapnel said:
I suggest that one or more of the numbers you claim as being commonly quoted are off.
Click to expand...
If you refresh your memory through some of the links below, you introduced the concept of "WRONG", not I, and I eventually concurred with your statement of "WRONG" in the context of our discussion (Rohanism) and certainly, in my opinion, the source and pedigree of the ~10 hp figure remain dubious or unknown at best. If you recall, you were the one having difficulty reconciling your "commonly quoted" numbers with the wind drag power equation.

I note that you are now fixated on one number and you have conveniently changed it (`32 to 30) to match one of the curves shown in the Phil Irving text that I referenced for you (spoon fed) - (a classic Rohanism).

Yes, only the 30 hp at 100 mph (not the two data points I initially took exception to) fits the "middle curve" shown in Phil Irving's text BUT no, it is not just a wind drag power value (as clearly stated in the text) but it also accounts for rolling resistance (and maybe more) and NO it is not the total power required from the engine. You may recall my statement that you were comparing Orangutans to Oranges, well this is the case here. As I have stated elsewhere, Phil Irving's curves are intermediate values. If you do not believe me, then try and plug both of your points (~10 hp is needed to do 60 mph,and ~32 hp to do 100 mph) into the wind drag power equation I referenced for you and others in the wiki or Phil Irving's text. I had asked or suggested that you do this a while back; it would have saved us all a lot of your line noise. And again, as you may recall, you were the one unable to reconcile what was presented with your "commonly quoted numbers".

If anybody is even interested, the following links capture the essence of much of this.
commando-motor-solid-frame-t25202-15.html
commando-motor-solid-frame-t25202-30.html
commando-motor-solid-frame-t25202-45.html
and on and on.......

As for "And which style puts folks off this forum, as has already been pointed out to you here...", a clear instance of Rohan projection - another common Rohanism. Though many don't care for conflict, from what I have read here and elsewhere, opinions vary :D and I would never be so unkind to repeat. :shock:

On another matter, the handbag war component of this thread reminds me of a software program called Doctor Eliza that I toyed around with decades ago. From Wikipedia:
ELIZA is a computer program and an early example of primitive natural language processing. ELIZA operated by processing users' responses to scripts, the most famous of which was DOCTOR, a simulation of a Rogerian psychotherapist. Using almost no information about human thought or emotion, DOCTOR sometimes provided a startlingly human-like interaction. ELIZA was written at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory by Joseph Weizenbaum between 1964 and 1966.[1]"

"When the "patient" exceeded the very small knowledge base, DOCTOR might provide a generic response, for example, responding to "My head hurts" with "Why do you say your head hurts?" A possible response to "My mother hates me" would be "Who else in your family hates you?" ELIZA was implemented using simple pattern matching techniques, but was taken seriously by several of its users, even after Weizenbaum explained to them how it worked. It was one of the first chatterbots.
Click to expand...

The witch and the duck have been weighed!

Sir, you are out of ammo, whether you know it or not.

:wink:
 
RohandoB arrogant ignorance feeds on your attention so hobot quit it
it started with "it pulls 100MPH at only 1/2 throttle"
 
hobot said:
RohandoB arrogant ignorance feeds on your attention so hobot quit it
it started with "it pulls 100MPH at only 1/2 throttle"
Click to expand...

Well, well, of all threads, on all the forums, you walk into this one !!!

The Hobot is back :D
 
I said what I mean and mean what I wrote, I quit public forums that risks pissing contests with Rohand and his several supporting groupies apparently too timid to chime in on this thread. hobot moved on, lurks to stay current. Peel Peeks in Pub w/o Rohand distractions.

it started with "it pulls 100MPH at only 1/2 throttle"
 
hobot said:
I said what I mean and mean what I wrote, I quit public forums that risks pissing contests with Rohand and his several supporting groupies apparently too timid to chime in on this thread. hobot moved on, lurks to stay current. Peel Peeks in Pub w/o Rohand distractions.

it started with "it pulls 100MPH at only 1/2 throttle"
Click to expand...

Hobot:

Nice to hear from you. Your words of wisdom acquired from Knocks University have been saddly missed.
(school of hard knocks for the uninformed)

Bob
 
This thread should have been started in the Pub. :mrgreen:
But it is quite entertaining. I Think I will now go for a bike ride.
Cheers,
T
 
Guess we should have known this would bring out the usual crowd ...

In the original thread.
P.S. And before anyone says anything silly, and for those mathematically inclined, it is generally quoted it takes the average moddersickle plus rider just over 30 hp to do 100 mph.
Click to expand...
 
hobot said:
I said what I mean and mean what I wrote, I quit public forums that risks pissing contests with Rohand and his several supporting groupies apparently too timid to chime in on this thread. hobot moved on, lurks to stay current.
Click to expand...

So there no truth to the rumours hobot that the NOC set up their own forum so that there was no hobot to contend with ?

And I can recall someone called Steve on this very forum, before it was Access (what was it called ?), who was very young and naive and unknowing about Nortons, and he was entertaining and interesting. Before he drove many away with much drivel, me included....

Being the resident genius AND the village idiot was never going to work....
You needed 2 separate logins, like others had/have ?!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top