One for Hobot, it has wings!

Oh yeah the air bag helmet and jacket would have to be supplied by a deep pockets company sponsor. I couldn't use the cage to pull off the phase 4 low to hi side launch as would foul the lean but wouldn't need the blower for the stunt so no need for the cage anyway. The cage is d/t public hazards not for any insecurity to crash accidentally on pavement. Duct tape major joints to hold them together if shattered again too. This barrel roll stunt would not use any aero dynamic aids to fly up and over as might delay or spin bike wrong. I suspect I could use a modern supermotard or MX bike to try it out and not risk Ms Peel in the harsh learning curve balls. It'd take wheelie power hits to launch on - other wise the flip is too low too fast to get full 360 in time. Accidental half ass hi sides don't work out very well for anyone.

E-mail Robbie Madison, he may buy your idea - for pay per view, or let you try it on his trick CR 500..

Dances with Shrapnel said:

Not distinguishing between sprung and unsprung down forces here, just additional down forces. In a turn, the tires can do only so much work and handle only so much energy, and then they slide.

Great for braking straight line and maybe initiation of a turn but during the turn, presumably with enough speed to result in significant down force, it would work against you.

My hunch is that the big benefit is hauling the bike down from high speeds without locking up the brakes. Anybody have insight to this bike. I know Tony Foal has quite a bit to say about aerodynamics but I am not going to look it up now.

Click to expand...

Without looking it up, what Tony Foale had to say was that wings fixed to the bike, like in the picture, are useless. Down force is increased so is the traction available for turning, but a component of the aerodynamic force acts outwards in the turn and all of the additional traction goes to overcoming that, so there is zero benefit. As Dances notes elsewhere, it works for cars because the aero force always acts, more or less, straight down. It's disturbing that a physicist wouldn't appreciate that.

Well, there`s the kind of theoretical proof that shows Bumblebees can`t fly, yet they do, & dont need CFA approval.
Like-wise, the Kiwi can-do attitude that resulted in such developments as the Hamilton jet boat propulsion system, + the Britten & BSL 500 racebikes,which meant that actually trying it, is the real deal...

J.A.W. said:

Well, there`s the kind of theoretical proof that shows Bumblebees can`t fly, yet they do, & dont need CFA approval.
Like-wise, the Kiwi can-do attitude that resulted in such developments as the Hamilton jet boat propulsion system, + the Britten & BSL 500 racebikes,which meant that actually trying it, is the real deal...

Click to expand...

What we're talking about here isn't complex it's just trigonometry. You can choose to try and disprove that opposite over adjacent equals a tangent, but I wouldn't consider that a can-do attitude when it clearly can't be done.

Not if you never tried...But plenty of things that couldn`t be done , are - but by doers, not gainsayers - naturally...so - stunt motorcycle double backflip, anyone?
& what was that Apollo Program about again? Hollywood?

You are arguing axioms here.

But to play along with your reasoning, there are illustrations in this thread where "the wing" was tried and there are references in this thread where qualified persons described why a particular wing does not help.

There is plenty written about fairing designs and getting the correct aerodynamics, not only for low drag but also for proper lift/down force so the bike does not loose traction and/or go airborne but that is a different matter.

Of course exploring new things under the auspice of "nothing ventured, nothing gained" is noble, exciting and best left to those who know what they are doing but this has already been done so borders on insanity if you keep on doing it and expect another result.

Of course exploring new things under the auspice of "nothing ventured, nothing gained" is noble, exciting and best left to those who know what they are doing but this has already been done so borders on insanity if you keep on doing it and expect another result.

Click to expand...

Yep so, Tony Foale and Kieth Code both go to great lengths to assure us the front steers motorcycles but they are limiting their flight envelopes to merely fast run way taxi speeds before lift offs that Peel invites me into. Following their limited views no cycle can fork straight steer at hi speed nor steer like a unicycle no problemo. Very few but ice racers and dirt runners know the fork can lever down the rear patch for more traction than just the bike/rider mass on it. Wings don't work as taught in school days, they create lift by angle of attack and vortexes generated and shed, so Peel may fly into the ground like a bumble bee yet not be able to hit it before the hi side saves us then have to endure the harsh un-isolated engine vibes to one or both tire land again ... a second or so later. Digital age has taught us that doing the same thing again and again can produce various outputs un-expectedly. Some craft like sail boards just shift the center of air pressure to spin on CoG axis, so that's something Peel will explore. Peel has never completed a full barrel roll only because I had no safe landing spot in public roads and held my self back launching off drive way bluff 'wall' as not enough traction to launch off and no crash cage if not getting it right right off the bat. Once ordinary handling is fully explored what tempts ya seek more?

Yes, most highly respected one. This is why all along I have been saying you should publish; not only publish but first go through peer review.

So you are a proponent of "keep doing something until you get a different result"; ok, yup, got that.

The case has been made about "The Wing" both in engineering statics/dynamics as well as in experimentation. So you think you can wring something else out of this, go ahead and try, experiment and by-the-way, I am still waiting for you to fetch that bucket of steam as well as that muffler bearing.


Oh, and why stop at one full barrel roll, why not two, three four or more barrel roles together - they do it in the cartoons.

Dances with Shrapnel said:

You are arguing axioms here.

Click to expand...

Axiom! good word, now that I've looked it up!

J.A.W. said:

Not if you never tried...But plenty of things that couldn`t be done , are - but by doers, not gainsayers - naturally...so - stunt motorcycle double backflip, anyone?
& what was that Apollo Program about again? Hollywood?

Click to expand...

Not good examples JAW: Dynamics no doubt show that triple or quadruple back flips are entirely possible and even though Issac Newton has been dead for about three hundred years he would not have been surprised to see men land on the moon.

Guess what, they still had to do it, to be believed...& contrary -wise, Galileo, who showed that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe - was threatened with death for publishing the facts of the matter.
A better axiom for an insanity analogy [although the quoted one aint bad] is the Golden Gate bridge, where people go to test Newtons gravitational theorems, a few get to repeat the experiment, but as for persistence & pay-off, ask yourself..

hehe Dances, it strikes me almost as crazy as it does you. Yet we see hi side that flip bike 360 though almost never landing to ride off. Its more a flying dream wish than reality to pull off, yet its only because I fear landing on my head d/t being too scared to give the sideways torque hit to fly up and over fully and land at a leaned angle so not to keep on rolling. One place this first occured to me to try is entering my drive way upward curl there 3-4 ft banked rise I ram against to almost bottom suspension while getting mostly horizontal while rear slightly walks out to aim us back to grade and I get almost weightless for that moment. The up rise ramp would give the main lift while just a bit more rear swing out would hang up to start the flip as frame unwarps helping the fling action. Anyhow its fun dynamics I think about because I have been flung ass over head just going straight on THE Gravel when the front jerked straight steer rudder action and hi sided on my face. There is some air time to record the dynamics and speed vs distance and angle before Red Sausage Creature song starts.

Aero dynmaics not involved in barrel roll dynamics so off point. Aero both affects Peel less than other cycles yet also more than other cycle, just not for same reasons or ways. Semi buffeting is felt mostly as just noise and sense of shudder past through frame but not effect line holding even hands off. Uncanny. Peel's side hack will have a down force wing but that's not applicable to leaning cycles. I've seen the horrific air turbulence spoke rims leave and sense that is messing with Peels lift/drop sense of suspension - not lean angle so much. Peel holds her lean angle until I change it or just stays at same angle while drifts wider so still aimed correctly but now more aligned with turn apex-exit so can lighten up steering force and upright more to convert power into more forward thrust. Its a fantastic feeling when cycle is so secure it invites into looseness so calmly. i wonder if a type of chin spoiler might stifle the front eddies. Once in this drift state you can cut it off short or keep on powering up to keep on trucking slightly out of line but staying balanced no problemo. It sure feels like water skiing but water don't resist the slide stopping as fast as cutting power on pavement and both tires hook up on edges, weeedoggiedoo! In its good sense of the term.