In other news today...
-
-
@rhywden said in In other news today...:
break something
one of the reasons quality bikes (and parts) are expensive ...
-
BREAKING NEWS: DVLA does what it's meant to do.
-
@rhywden said in In other news today...:
Also, front and back brakes mean double the potential braking force.
It is not double. As you start to brake, the braking force acting below centre of gravity creates a moment, which shifts more weight on the front wheel, so the front brake acts with more force. If you brake hard, it acts with most of the force and the rear one is just along for the ride, mostly improving directional control. In fact, not tipping over the front wheel is the limiting factor in how hard you can brake.
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
The back wheel can't turn without the pedals turning; slow down the pedals and you slow down the bike.
Yes. But it's nearly useless. You start to brake, the weight shifts on the front wheel and the rear wheel loses most of it's braking efficiency. It's clearly less than half of the force. Say a third. A third of the force means 9 times longer stopping distance.
@pleegwat said in In other news today...:
Requiring brakes on both wheels is just redundancy; it's perfectly safe to drive with only one brake on your bike.
No, it isn't (only). The rear brake is much less efficient than the front due to the above. And braking only with the front makes it harder to maintain control. So if you need to stop, you really need to use both brakes.
Of course, redundancy is still a point. You can still stop with just one if you have to. But the distance will be much longer, so reducing it is an important reason.
-
@bulb Ah, you're correct - forgot the angular momentum :)
-
@rhywden It's not angular momentum, it is a moment of force ().
-
@bulb hey look, I found a PDF with this nice chart:
-
@anotherusername So if you're slowing down fast, you need to shift your weight backward to (partially) compensate. Just don't touch your hindquarters to the back tire--that's a bad place to get a tire burn. Also, that would require very long arms.
-
@anotherusername
Pfff me or my bike are even approaching that kind of weight!
-
@benjamin-hall said in In other news today...:
you need to shift your weight backward
only if you would like to remain upright
@benjamin-hall said in In other news today...:
Also, that would require very long arms
one of the reasons some MTBs have the ability to drop the saddle from sitting height to just above the frame with a flip of a switch. It allows the rider to literally throw his weight around without being hindered by the seating arrangements.
-
@bulb said in In other news today...:
As you start to brake, the braking force acting below centre of gravity creates a moment, which shifts more weight on the front wheel, so the front brake acts with more force. If you brake hard, it acts with most of the force and the rear one is just along for the ride, mostly improving directional control. In fact, not tipping over the front wheel is the limiting factor in how hard you can brake.
Bikers ignore laws anyway. Why should the laws of physics be any different?
-
@da-doctah said in In other news today...:
BikersCyclists ignore laws anyway.'Bikers' tends to mean those riding motorcycles, and the vast majority of them are responsible riders.
-
@raceprouk said in In other news today...:
the vast majority of them are responsible riders.
due to natural selection, mainly. The ones who aren't don't tent to ride for long
-
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
@bulb hey look, I found a PDF with this nice chart:
That graph is broken after 6.7m/s2 - that black line shouldn't be taking the rear wheel into account since, as the note below indicates, there's no such thing as 'negative force' in this situation.
-
@pjh said in In other news today...:
That graph is broken after 6.7m/s2 - that black line shouldn't be taking the rear wheel into account since, as the note below indicates, there's no such thing as 'negative force' in this situation.
No, the graph is theoretical after 6.7m/s2... I sincerely doubt that you'll be able to continue applying more braking force to the front wheel as you're flying over it.
-
And when put together, the number 67 can be read by some as an "R" - but only if you look really, really hard
???
-
@hungrier said in In other news today...:
And when put together, the number 67 can be read by some as an "R" - but only if you look really, really hard
???
-
@bulb said in In other news today...:
@rhywden It's not angular momentum, it is a moment of force ().
Well, your car wants to turn around the center of mass so, angular it is :)
(And that's where the German-English-translation got me because in Germany we have the thing called "Drehmoment" which would could be translated to "angular momentum" but in fact is translated to "torque" which is what I meant. Angular momentum is translated as "Drehimpuls")
-
@raceprouk said in In other news today...:
@da-doctah said in In other news today...:
BikersCyclists ignore laws anyway.'Bikers' tends to mean those riding motorcycles, and the vast majority of them are responsible riders.
I see you've never been to California.
-
-
@luhmann said in In other news today...:
@rhywden said in In other news today...:
break something
one of the reasons quality bikes (and parts) are expensive ...
I don't think he's taking about breaking the bike...
-
-
-
@boomzilla If he didn't get that off Amazon Cloud Drive in time before they started charging by the gigabyte, boy is he going to be surprised by that bill.
Also, mirrored to Google Drive? I didn't think Google Drive had an unlimited option.
-
@heterodox The idea of 2PB of porn is so amusing that I'm willing to suspend a lot of disbelief.
-
-
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
Also, the bike does have a brake: the pedals.
You've obviously never ridden a fixed gear. When you get up speed, you can't stop quickly. And, no, you can't lock up the rear wheel. At least I couldn't - and none of my friends ever did either. (that was back in my racing days) I tried - almost ripped my knees apart.
-
@pleegwat said in In other news today...:
@masonwheeler said in In other news today...:
@pleegwat said in In other news today...:
However, a 'fixie' as the article calls them isn't a safe brake, since you can't just apply full braking in an emergency.
This. Fixies are for show; they're not a good idea to ride out in public.
That and track cycling.
And training - it helped when I was racing (I did crits and road races - not track). NONE of my friends would have considered riding our fixed wheels without brakes.
-
@timebandit said in In other news today...:
@karla said in In other news today...:
Plus over depending upon the front brake and you'll flip over the handlebars.
That's a fast way to stop
I've done that (in a race). Other cyclist wasn't happy about it. But, hey, he's the one who crashed in front of me!
-
@dcon said in In other news today...:
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
Also, the bike does have a brake: the pedals.
You've obviously never ridden a fixed gear. When you get up speed, you can't stop quickly. And, no, you can't lock up the rear wheel. At least I couldn't - and none of my friends ever did either. (that was back in my racing days) I tried - almost ripped my knees apart.
I didn't say it was a particularly good brake...
-
-
@pjh said in In other news today...:
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
@bulb hey look, I found a PDF with this nice chart:
That graph is broken after 6.7m/s2 - that black line shouldn't be taking the rear wheel into account since, as the note below indicates, there's no such thing as 'negative force' in this situation.
Sure there is - something that accelerates you. And if you're flipping over the front wheel, it's entirely possible you've managed to accelerate the center of mass forward. At least until it hits the ground on the wrong side.
-
Unfortunate for the taxpayer that it happened, but if anyone disagrees with the outcome them and I are going to have words.
Edit: Nice onebox.
-
@brisingraerowing
I see he has discovered Hollywoodclimateaccounting science.
-
-
@coldandtired Quite a dent she made!
-
@luhmann said in In other news today...:
@karla said in In other news today...:
fast enough
like going downhill ... riding a MTB or race bike downhill can easily overheat your brakes (even the disc brake systems)
I post this from terrifying experience going downhill on a single lane serpentine road with no shoulder (even worse it was a valley).
I was warned to take the lane if I was going fast enough. But I had to tap both breaks throughout the trip before I got to a flat enough spot I could actually stop.
Once I stopped, I dropped the bike and kissed the ground because that was terrifying*.
* And exhilarating.
-
@raceprouk said in In other news today...:
They can't have been more than a couple hundred yards inside the border. Hardly worth worrying about, tbh.
Goddamn foreigners thinking they can disrespect a nation's borders. Probably bringing crime and terror. This is why Brexit was needed.
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
The article is so devoid of information or content, that 60% of it is just jerking off the morality of recording a live stream.
I gather the uploading effort was distributed, or else someone's bandwidth bill is going to be roughly the GDP of a small nation.
-
@karla said in In other news today...:
exhilarating
It's the reason for going up the hill in the first place!
-
@luhmann well, if she's going down the hill, it is from her perspective, an ex-hill. Combine this fact with the fact that with the effect of gravity, one usually accelerates while travelling down a hill and you get the word exhilarating, as a portmanteau of these things.
-
@arantor said in In other news today...:
@luhmann well, if she's going down the hill, it is from her perspective, an ex-hill. Combine this fact with the fact that with the effect of gravity, one usually accelerates while travelling down a hill and you get the word exhilarating, as a portmanteau of these things.
Paging @Groaner
-
@arantor
At least she didn't judo chop that hill
-
@heterodox said in In other news today...:
Unfortunate for the taxpayer that it happened, but if anyone disagrees with the outcome them and I are going to have words.
Edit: Nice onebox.
TFA doesn't really say. Were they promised the wrong amounts or were they paid something other than what they were promised? Or promised "correct" bonuses that they shouldn't have been qualified to receive?
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
TFA doesn't really say. Were they promised the wrong amounts or were they paid something other than what they were promised? Or promised "correct" bonuses that they shouldn't have been qualified to receive?
They were in general promised bonuses they shouldn't have been qualified to receive. There was one MSG in the CA ARNG who was solely responsible for issuance of the bonuses and obviously there was a lot of pressure from higher ups to approve them all given the troop surge. An audit caught it in 2011 and she was given a 30-month jail sentence and ordered to repay $15.2 million for a false claim. About 30 other people including O-4s and above were given reprimands and/or forced to retire.
-
@heterodox Yeah, it would make no sense to have the recipients repay those.
-
@luhmann said in In other news today...:
@arantor
At least she didn't judo chop that hillShadowbanned .
-
@karla
Forgot to sneak in a q somewhere in that sentence to qompensate
-
-
@boomzilla That sounds awesome. Whole Foods is generally good, but the "Whole Foods tax" has always been fucking expensive.