Ryders crash -motor?

[Almeisan]

you guys gotta be kidding.
the rear wheel spins forward, as it would if it where motorized.
the whole point of a motorized rear wheel would be to make the bike go forward, right?

Given your record of being bat-**** crazy, I am going to assume this isn't a simple matter about being confused about what side of the wheel was forward-facing the moment it rotates as the steerer is bent a 90 degrees.

It is just you being your usual self.

 

[hrotha]

What are the official sources saying about this matter?

It was more of a general comment than one applying to this situation only, but in this case I guess the official sources would be the race reports that didn't mention anything weird and the last few centuries of physics.

 

[markene2]

you call it ridiculous now but when automatic bikes ridden by reptilians of the 7th moon will crash into you, you will see the truth.

Had a nice giggle with this post!

 

[Bluenote]

you guys gotta be kidding.
the rear wheel spins forward, as it would if it where motorized.
the whole point of a motorized rear wheel would be to make the bike go forward, right?

gravity could be an explanation but it doesn't look at all steep enough.

No, if you are looking at a bike from the derailure side it spins clockwise. Post accident Ryder's bike spins counterclockwise.

Anyone can check this on their bike and see.

 

[Bluenote]

WTF comment.

We're drinking to this thread over on RBR. It makes more sense in context, sorry.

Though, in fairness, it's a drink-worthy thread.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

In another science news, your ears secrete more wax when you are afraid.

 

[sniper]

Given your record of being bat-**** crazy, I am going to assume this isn't a simple matter about being confused about what side of the wheel was forward-facing the moment it rotates as the steerer is bent a 90 degrees.

No, if you are looking at a bike from the derailure side it spins clockwise. Post accident Ryder's bike spins counterclockwise.

Anyone can check this on their bike and see.

i pride myself in having half a brain, but i miss the other half needed to see how the position of the steering wheel is relevant here.
i'm looking at the footage, and all i see is a rear wheel pushing the bike forward, the front wheel standing still and serving as an axis.
why are you guys making conspiracy science out of this? it's pretty straightforward. as scienceiscool said earlier, the footage is unambiguous.
the spinning rear wheel pushing the bike forward is what you'd expect both if this was natural spinning and if it was motor-driven spinning.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

No, if you are looking at a bike from the derailure side it spins clockwise. Post accident Ryder's bike spins counterclockwise.

Anyone can check this on their bike and see.

Man alive. His wheel is rolling forward, and his bike does too. Your diagram on RBR wherever is perfectly logical and normal.

Action = equal and opposite reaction.

That's pretty simple physics, that you can see in anything. Push one way and you move the other.

His bike spins the wrong direction to be driven by a motor driving the bike forward.

Here, I did a little diagram over on RBR. Cheers.

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/do...nother-motorized-bike-331160-post4702780.html

At least I have the good sense to drink while on this thread.

You have to be trolling, surely?


If a wheel is pushing this way ---------------------> then the bike moves this way <--------------------------------.

That's how bikes work.

That's how his bike moves.

 

[Cycle Chic]

We're drinking to this thread over on RBR. It makes more sense in context, sorry.

Though, in fairness, it's a drink-worthy thread.

can you post the link to the page please...may read some intelligent posts there

 

[Praying Mantis]

My team of astrophysicists assure me that it is in fact the Earth spinning, not the bike. Remarkable.

 

[Bluenote]

.
and good luck explaining why the front wheel stops spinning and the back wheel doesn't.

I'm going to try and explain this for a 'lay' audience, so the I won't use all of the exact, technical terms.

1) Direction of movement of the front wheel, versus direction of momentum fueled movement of the bike, combined with 2) Concentrated distribution area of the front wheel, the front wheel force is sufficient to overcome the coefficient of friction. The rear wheel has less concentration and doesn't overcome the low friction.

Translation: the front wheel lands perpendicular to the direction of momentum. The pavement is slick, but not magically so (Ryder is able to stand on it). The rear wheel doesn't have much weight per psi, so it can still slide (or spin) on the pavement. The front wheel has more weight per psi, so its slide / spin is stopped.

1a) (general principal) Wheels are partially pinned. If you push on them perpendicular to their hubs, their movement is restricted. If you push on them parallel to their hubs, they spin freely.

1b) The front wheel folds over and winds up so the front wheel is mostly perpendicular to the front hub. So the wheel is restricted (by the ground) in it's principle direction of movement.

1) (specific to this case) Look at the various directions of movement. This relative direction of the forces explains most of why the front wheel stops.

2a) (general principal) The weight of an object x its angle x its distribution = vertical force vector.

A 100 pound block, balanced on a 10 sq in post, angled straight down = 10 pounds per square inch on the post

A 100 pound block, balanced on a 1 sq in post = 100 pounds per square inch on the post

Think walking in snow with snowshoes, versus the same walk with high heels.

2) (specific) The front wheel winds up with a lot of tributary force on it. The rear wheel is laid out flat and spreads its force over a larger area.

3a) (general principal) Every material has a coefficient of friction. Roughly explained, that is how much friction will occur between it and another object.

'Slippery' materials, such as ice, have low coefficients. Rough material, such as industrial sanding material, have high coefficients.

3b) (general principal) if there is no friction, 'pushing forward' on an object will move it forward. Imagine pushing a beer glass across a table. This 'push' can be quantified as a horizontal force vector (1 pound of push, 10 pounds of push, etc...)

3c) (general principal) vertical force x the coefficient of friction = friction 'force' on the object

Imagine our posts above sliding on a infinitely slick table with a coefficient of friction of 0.00 (no friction)

10 psi x 0 = 0 pounds of friction

Now imagine that the table is slippery, but has some friction, a coefficient of friction of 0.10

10 psi x 0.10 = 1 pound of friction

100 psi x 0.10 = 10 pounds of friction

Assuming friction is equal it takes more force to 'push' a 100 pound object forward, then a 10 pound object.

3d) (general principle)
Horizontal Force > friction = object moves
Horizontal Force < friction = object doesn't move

10 pound push versus 1 pound of friction = object moves
10 pound push versus 10 pounds of friction = object doesn't move

Think of how a skinny guy on ice skates can 'glide' a lot further than a fat guy on skates.

3) (specific) Ryder's front wheel has more weight on it, and creates more friction. The Rear wheel has less weight on it and creates less friction.

Anywho. I don't expect you to believe or understand my explanation. But it was fun to do, trying to translate the concepts into 'plain english'. If CN allowed me to upload diagrams, I could do explain it with a few formulas and diagrams.

 

[Bluenote]

Man alive. His wheel is rolling forward, and his bike does too. Your diagram on RBR wherever is perfectly logical and normal.

Action = equal and opposite reaction.

That's pretty simple physics, that you can see in anything. Push one way and you move the other.



You have to be trolling, surely?


If a wheel is pushing this way ---------------------> then the bike moves this way <--------------------------------.

That's how bikes work.

That's how his bike moves.

Shouldn't your location say 'The International Space Station'?

 

[Almeisan]

Man alive. His wheel is rolling forward, and his bike does too. Your diagram on RBR wherever is perfectly logical and normal.

Action = equal and opposite reaction.

That's pretty simple physics, that you can see in anything. Push one way and you move the other.



You have to be trolling, surely?


If a wheel is pushing this way ---------------------> then the bike moves this way <--------------------------------.

That's how bikes work.

That's how his bike moves.

A quality of the wheel is that no matter which way it turns, it always 'moves forward' on either the top or the bottom side.

If you had paid attention you would have known everyone has been talking about the front wheel all this time. You know, the wheel that is accelerating the bike for a moment after it almost came to a stop.

I mean, you can't really be talking about his front wheel, can you?
If you are, when you are riding along, the front wheel goes top->forward->down->backward-top
In the video it goes foward->top->backward->bottom (unless Rydar had his steer mounted in reverse, which would explain why he jumped off the bike, rather than steering through the corner).

 

[Bluenote]

A quality of the wheel is that no matter which way it turns, it always 'moves forward' on either the top or the bottom side.

If you had paid attention you would have known everyone has been talking about the front wheel all this time. You know, the wheel that is accelerating the bike for a moment after it almost came to a stop.

I mean, you can't really be talking about his front wheel, can you?
If you are, when you are riding along, the front wheel goes top->forward->down->backward-top
In the video it goes foward->top->backward->bottom (unless Rydar had his steer mounted in reverse, which would explain why he jumped off the bike, rather than steering through the corner).

No, Dear Wiggo was responding to me. I was specifically talking about his rear wheel (see link above to my RBR post and diagram).

 

[Dear Wiggo]

If you had paid attention you would have known everyone has been talking about the front wheel all this time. You know, the wheel that is accelerating the bike for a moment after it almost came to a stop.

This is the image Bluenote so proudly posted explaining why the theory is wrong:

His graphic clearly indicates the rear wheel is traveling backwards and the bike travels in the opposite direction.

This is what you would observe in the real world.

Instead, he trolls me by suggesting there is something wrong with me.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Shouldn't your location say 'The International Space Station'?

Shouldn't you explain why the wheel when I am riding my bike pushes backward and the bike rolls forward is exactly what is happening with Ryder's bike on the ground?

I realise trolling is easier, but still...

Are you saying his rear wheel is not touching the ground?

 

[Bluenote]

This is the image Bluenote so proudly posted explaining why the theory is wrong:

His graphic clearly indicates the rear wheel is traveling backwards and the bike travels in the opposite direction.

This is what you would observe in the real world.

Instead, he trolls me by suggesting there is something wrong with me.

Well, the clinic never disapoints.

I was not trolling you, I was making a physics joke. That's why I added the little winky face. In zero gravity (like a space station,) when you push forward, it makes you go backwards.

I know, physics jokes are pretty obscure.

I suppose arguing 'when a bike is going forward, what direction does it's wheel spin,' is a bit like arguing if the earth is flat. Observe for yourself, agree or not.

Perhaps this thread will get an epic 800 pages, like the Armstrong thread?

 

[slopoke]

I think you are all looking at this the wrong way.
These supposedly motor assisted bikes start with the BB>CRANK ARM>chain ring>Chain>Cogs. You get the idea. If there motor is still running it would have to run the Cranks through the Chain. The Cranks are not moving do how is it propelling the rear wheel? It's not the chain. The chain/chainring/cranks would have to be moving. Unless the have put some other motor in the rear hub.

 

[Granville57]

I think you are all looking at this the wrong way.

No, it's been covered.

So what mechanism would be propelling the rear wheel without turning the cranks? Every video I've seen of motorized bicycles shows the force being generated to the crank arms, not the rear wheel independently.

I just wish we could see the spokes on the rear wheel to see if it is actually turning or not.

But keep in mind we're only on page 12, and 800 is the goal. So let's keep the forward momentum going.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Well, the clinic never disapoints.

I was not trolling you, I was making a physics joke. That's why I added the little winky face. In zero gravity (like a space station,) when you push forward, it makes you go backwards.

I know, physics jokes are pretty obscure.

I suppose arguing 'when a bike is going forward, what direction does it's wheel spin,' is a bit like arguing if the earth is flat. Observe for yourself, agree or not.

Perhaps this thread will get an epic 800 pages, like the Armstrong thread?

You didn't answer the question: are you saying Ryder's bike should be going the opposite way to what it did to satisfy the "hidden motor" theory?

Is that because you think the wheel is off the ground?

I realise it's easier to try and crack jokes when someone asks you a direct question, and then talk about Armstrong threads and what not, but it doesn't really move the discussion forward.

Personally I find the video interesting. The point at contact as he falls the surface looks shiny, and reminiscent of a diesel spill. Very slippery stuff. I've dropped a bike and seen dropped bikes, and the wheels spin, but the acceleration the bike undergoes is remarkable.


Feel free to crack all the jokes you like once the questions seeking clear communication have been answered.
Also: as a general rule, making self deprecating jokes about yourself, rather than someone who just asked you a question, will typically be a lot more effective.

 

[Parker]

Okay. Physicist here.

If you're genuinely a physicist, then you'll know about peer review. Show your peers this and present your hypothesis.
I will guarantee they won't laugh at you. (But I can't guarantee that they won't laugh about you behind your back - hey John, do you still not believe in inertia. Hey there's Swanson, he thinks equalibrium is a Christian Bale film. Hey Swanson! May the force me with you. As long as it is not temporally opposed by other forces. ).

If you're actually a physicist you should be ashamed of what you wrote.

 

[Bluenote]

You didn't answer the question: are you saying Ryder's bike should be going the opposite way to what it did to satisfy the "hidden motor" theory?

Is that because you think the wheel is off the ground?

I realise it's easier to try and crack jokes when someone asks you a direct question, and then talk about Armstrong threads and what not, but it doesn't really move the discussion forward.

Personally I find the video interesting. The point at contact as he falls the surface looks shiny, and reminiscent of a diesel spill. Very slippery stuff. I've dropped a bike and seen dropped bikes, and the wheels spin, but the acceleration the bike undergoes is remarkable.


Feel free to crack all the jokes you like once the questions seeking clear communication have been answered.
Also: as a general rule, making self deprecating jokes about yourself, rather than someone who just asked you a question, will typically be a lot more effective.

I answered your question. I said observe for yourself and agree or not.

What I meant was straightforward. I meant 'you and I agree to disagree, I see no point in arguing endlessly.'

You've been quite interpersonally testy with me - called me a troll, lectured me about my posting style, etc... (No humor? Who died and made you king of the net?). This is a big part of why I'm "calling" the argument. I see no good and lots of potential harm in a protracted argument.

'It spins forward'
'No, it spins backwards, you troll!'
'It spins forward in the Northern Hemisphere.'
'It spins backwards. How dare you make fun of Australia!'
'It spins forward, don't call me a troll.'
'It spins backwards, kool-aid drinker!'

And then we wind up on the members suspension thread, embarrasing ourselves.

So no. I agree to disagree. I agree to have a different posting style. Life goes on.

 

[Bluenote]

I think you are all looking at this the wrong way.
These supposedly motor assisted bikes start with the BB>CRANK ARM>chain ring>Chain>Cogs. You get the idea. If there motor is still running it would have to run the Cranks through the Chain. The Cranks are not moving do how is it propelling the rear wheel? It's not the chain. The chain/chainring/cranks would have to be moving. Unless the have put some other motor in the rear hub.

Very good point.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I answered your question. I said observe for yourself and agree or not.

What I meant was straightforward. I meant 'you and I agree to disagree, I see no point in arguing endlessly.'

You've been quite interpersonally testy with me - called me a troll, lectured me about my posting style, etc... (No humor? Who died and made you king of the net?). This is a big part of why I'm "calling" the argument. I see no good and lots of potential harm in a protracted argument.

'It spins forward'
'No, it spins backwards, you troll!'
'It spins forward in the Northern Hemisphere.'
'It spins backwards. How dare you make fun of Australia!'
'It spins forward, don't call me a troll.'
'It spins backwards, kool-aid drinker!'

And then we wind up on the members suspension thread, embarrasing ourselves.

So no. I agree to disagree. I agree to have a different posting style. Life goes on.

So again I ask a direct question, and you refuse to answer it?

Incredible.

FYI, here's the very first, stickied post in the clinic. It's generic to the iNternet in general, and as you seem inexperienced with online communication, I'll quote it here for your perusal:

Guidelines for Posting
Post, not the poster. If you don't like what a post says, counter the post. Do not attack the poster. Personal comments, such as "Your mother wears army boots", are considered personal attacks, and thus fall under the "looking for a fight" rule. If you are using the word "you", you are probably engaging in a personal attack.

Humor. Humor is difficult to use in writing, and is subject to personal interpretation. If another poster or a moderator finds your "humor" not to be humorous? Then it is up to the mods.

So if you can't be bothered answering a direct question ("are you saying it's not touching the ground?") then the posting guideline is suggesting you don't make a joke (humour is subjective) about the poster asking the question ("your location should be the ISS"). http://forum.cyclingnews.com/announcement.php?f=20

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Seriously, Bluenote, it's still not clear from your responses - on either forum - what you actually believe. OR if it is clear, I missed it, and am asking you to perhaps enlighten me as to what you believe is happening in the video?:


A. Ryder's rear wheel is going "backwards" (ie if the bike was upright the wheel direction would move the bike backward - ie if it was fixed wheel clearly roadies don't get driven backwards)
B. Ryder's rear wheel is going "forwards" (ie if the bike was upright the wheel direction would move the bike forward)

and

C. Ryder's wheel is touching the ground
D. Ryder's wheel is not touching the ground