WHOOPS! ANOTHER Dead Mountain Biker!

On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 8:33:14 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
Where do I make any assumptions about distance ?



You describe them as riding exactly the same trail. DUH!



Read carefully ... I describe the difference in riding ONE HILL !

That's exactly what I said: you choose to distort the situation by pretending that bikers only ride as far as a hiker. Liar. That's called "biased (= mountain biker) science".

Having a rational conversation is difficult if you jump to erroneous conclusions every five seconds.



Bike + rider is heavier than a hiker, hence more force downward. The same for sidewards momentum. Greater momentum = greater sidewards force on the trail = erosion. Then multiply those impacts several times, since bikers travel several times as far as a hiker. DUH!



Ah ... and here we see where you WEREN'T paying attention. Yes, more FORCE downwards due to slightly higher weight BUT less ENERGY imparted because for energy to be imparted you have to move something (the trail). ( fd = e )



Since it takes TIME to move something ( ft = mv - mu ) the less time you spend on a quantum of track the less work (impact) you do on it. So, the hiker's weight is bearing down on a section of track a lot longer than the biker's weight is doing so.



Or, to put it another way, which would hurt more ? My riding over your foot or my stopping on top of it ? Obvious when you think about it that way..



So, you really do need to go back and do some remedial physics before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

You describe them as riding exactly the same trail. DUH!

Read carefully ... I describe the difference in riding ONE HILL !

That's exactly what I said: you choose to distort the situation by pretending that bikers only ride as far as a hiker. Liar. That's called "biased (= mountain biker) science".

I addressed that elsewhere ... later in the same post ... so I am hardly 'distorting'.

But, yet again, you are caught out in an overt lie ... can't be bothered to read carefully and just spout off without thinking.

On Monday, July 1, 2013 8:36:00 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
You describe them as riding exactly the same trail. DUH! Read carefully ... I describe the difference in riding ONE HILL ! That's exactly what I said: you choose to distort the situation by pretending that bikers only ride as far as a hiker. Liar. That's called "biased (= mountain biker) science". I addressed that elsewhere ... later in the same post .... so I am hardly 'distorting'. But, yet again, you are caught out in an overt lie ... can't be bothered to read carefully and just spout off without thinking.

So how do you explain how a mountain biker can travel several times as far and as fast as a hiker, and yet not do more damage? That is, of course, impossib;le. Vandeman still 1000, mountain bikers ZERO.

So how do you explain how a mountain biker can travel several times as far and as fast as a hiker, and yet not do more damage? That is, of course, impossib;le. Vandeman still 1000, mountain bikers ZERO.

I already did, in this very thread ...

"Ah ... and here we see where you WEREN'T paying attention. Yes, more FORCE downwards due to slightly higher weight BUT less ENERGY imparted because for energy to be imparted you have to move something (the trail). ( fd = e )

Since it takes TIME to move something ( ft = mv - mu ) the less time you spend on a quantum of track the less work (impact) you do on it. So, the hiker's weight is bearing down on a section of track a lot longer than the biker's weight is doing so.

Or, to put it another way, which would hurt more ? My riding over your foot or my stopping on top of it ? Obvious when you think about it that way.

So, you really do need to go back and do some remedial physics before you make an even bigger fool of yourself."

Vandeman minus several million for not even bothering to read the thread on which he's commenting and getting it wrong again.

The physics is really simple at a high level. Power output multiplied by TIME (not distance) determines how much total energy is imparted to the 'system'. If you're producing, say, 200 Watts then that means that 720kiloJoules will be imparted per hour. If you travel 5 miles in that time then you will impart 144kJ per mile. If you travel 10 miles in that time then you will impart only 72kJ per mile. Also, since air resistance goes up with the square of speed travelling faster will lose a lot more energy to air resistance instead of just to friction on the trail.

So, your only way to refute this is to argue, as is the case, that moutainbikers are fitter and therefore produce more power. But that then conflicts with your standard diatribe about mountainbikers being lazy :-). The reality IS that energy output is, on average, higher for mountainbikers ... but it's only slightly so ... not orders of magnitude.

Give up Mike ... you can't win this one ... conservation of energy is a universal fundamental ... you can't make it up and you can't magically lose it either. Hikers will provide, on average, MORE crushing impact on a trail than bikers because they compress each part of the trail for longer. Bikes will, on average, provide more impact on a trail when braking hard or cornering. Different impacts, certainly, but overall they have to be roughly equivalent in terms of impact because they are inputting the same amount of energy.

On Monday, July 1, 2013 9:18:26 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
So how do you explain how a mountain biker can travel several times as far and as fast as a hiker, and yet not do more damage? That is, of course, impossib;le. Vandeman still 1000, mountain bikers ZERO. I already did, in this very thread ... "Ah ... and here we see where you WEREN'T paying attention. Yes, more FORCE downwards due to slightly higher weight BUT less ENERGY imparted because for energy to be imparted you have to move something (the trail). ( fd = e ) Since it takes TIME to move something ( ft = mv - mu ) the less time you spend on a quantum of track the less work (impact) you do on it. So, the hiker's weight is bearing down on a section of track a lot longer than the biker's weight is doing so. Or, to put it another way, which would hurt more ? My riding over your foot or my stopping on top of it ? Obvious when you think about it that way. So, you really do need to go back and do some remedial physics before you make an even bigger fool of yourself." Vandeman minus several million for not even bothering to read the thread on which he's commenting and getting it wrong again. The physics is really simple at a high level. Power output multiplied by TIME (not distance) determines how much total energy is imparted to the 'system'. If you're producing, say, 200 Watts then that means that 720kiloJoules will be imparted per hour. If you travel 5 miles in that time then you will impart 144kJ per mile. If you travel 10 miles in that time then you will impart only 72kJ per mile. Also, since air resistance goes up with the square of speed travelling faster will lose a lot more energy to air resistance instead of just to friction on the trail. So, your only way to refute this is to argue, as is the case, that moutainbikers are fitter and therefore produce more power. But that then conflicts with your standard diatribe about mountainbikers being lazy :-). The reality IS that energy output is, on average, higher for mountainbikers ... but it's only slightly so ... not orders of magnitude. Give up Mike ... you can't win this one ... conservation of energy is a universal fundamental ... you can't make it up and you can't magically lose it either. Hikers will provide, on average, MORE crushing impact on a trail than bikers because they compress each part of the trail for longer. Bikes will, on average, provide more impact on a trail when braking hard or cornering. Different impacts, certainly, but overall they have to be roughly equivalent in terms of impact because they are inputting the same amount of energy.

Thanks for proving my point! Once again, you totally failed to factor in distance travelled, because you know it would prove that mountain bikers do MUCH more damage than hikers. You also lie about impact per foot: because bikers travel faster, they have more momentum & exert greater force on the trail. That's why bike skid marks are far more prominent than hiker footprints, which are usually barely visible. I know you will never admit being wrong, because you don't have the GUTS, but your cause is hopeless. Try telling the truth, for once in your worthless life!

Thanks for proving my point! Once again, you totally failed to factor in distance travelled, because you know it would prove that mountain bikers do MUCH more damage than hikers. You also lie about impact per foot: because bikers travel faster, they have more momentum & exert greater force on the trail. That's why bike skid marks are far more prominent than hiker footprints, which are usually barely visible. I know you will never admit being wrong, because you don't have the GUTS, but your cause is hopeless. Try telling the truth, for once in your worthless life!

Try READING for once in your worthless life ... you have missed the point entirely and your physics is WRONG ! Momementum has a vector ... which is FORWARD ... not down into the trail.

I also addressed, in my last post, the distance issue.

You're flailing here Mike because you clearly don't, whatever you may say, understand the physics. Go and re-read some basic textbooks and look at the equations. Then, maybe, we can have a sensible conversation. Until then you're just flailing around as usual.

On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 1:48:42 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
Thanks for proving my point! Once again, you totally failed to factor in distance travelled, because you know it would prove that mountain bikers do MUCH more damage than hikers. You also lie about impact per foot: because bikers travel faster, they have more momentum & exert greater force on the trail. That's why bike skid marks are far more prominent than hiker footprints, which are usually barely visible. I know you will never admit being wrong, because you don't have the GUTS, but your cause is hopeless. Try telling the truth, for once in your worthless life! Try READING for once in your worthless life ... you have missed the point entirely and your physics is WRONG ! Momementum has a vector ... which is FORWARD ... not down into the trail.

Yes, which is how erosion is caused. That's why mountain biking causes more erosion than hiking -- something you keep trying to ignore. Vandeman 1000, mountain bikers ZERO.

I also addressed, in my last post, the distance issue. You're flailing here Mike because you clearly don't, whatever you may say, understand the physics. Go and re-read some basic textbooks and look at the equations. Then, maybe, we can have a sensible conversation. Until then you're just flailing around as usual.

Look up "projection" in a dictionary of psychology. You just don't have the guts to admit that you are wrong. Or even to admit your own name! Idiot.

On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 3:36:56 PM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 1:48:42 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:

Thanks for proving my point! Once again, you totally failed to factor in distance travelled, because you know it would prove that mountain bikers do MUCH more damage than hikers. You also lie about impact per foot: because bikers travel faster, they have more momentum & exert greater force on the trail. That's why bike skid marks are far more prominent than hiker footprints, which are usually barely visible. I know you will never admit being wrong, because you don't have the GUTS, but your cause is hopeless. Try telling the truth, for once in your worthless life! Try READING for once in your worthless life ... you have missed the point entirely and your physics is WRONG ! Momementum has a vector ... which is FORWARD ... not down into the trail.



Yes, which is how erosion is caused. That's why mountain biking causes more erosion than hiking -- something you keep trying to ignore. Vandeman 1000, mountain bikers ZERO.

No Mike, erosion is caused by work BEING DONE ON THE TRAIL. That's why when bikers brake or corner they put most impact on the trail. When they simply roll over quickly, without braking or accelerating, there is LESS impact than from a hiker. Like I said, stop awarding yourself points for stupidity and go and learn some physics.

Look up "projection" in a dictionary of psychology. You just don't have the guts to admit that you are wrong. Or even to admit your own name! Idiot.

Very funny ... from a lying, criminal and monomaniacal loon :-)

On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 8:15:10 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 3:36:56 PM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 1:48:42 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote: Thanks for proving my point! Once again, you totally failed to factor in distance travelled, because you know it would prove that mountain bikers do MUCH more damage than hikers. You also lie about impact per foot: because bikers travel faster, they have more momentum & exert greater force on the trail. That's why bike skid marks are far more prominent than hiker footprints, which are usually barely visible. I know you will never admit being wrong, because you don't have the GUTS, but your cause is hopeless. Try telling the truth, for once in your worthless life! Try READING for once in your worthless life ... you have missed the point entirely and your physics is WRONG ! Momementum has a vector ... which is FORWARD ... not down into the trail. Yes, which is how erosion is caused. That's why mountain biking causes more erosion than hiking -- something you keep trying to ignore. Vandeman 1000, mountain bikers ZERO. No Mike, erosion is caused by work BEING DONE ON THE TRAIL. That's why when bikers brake or corner they put most impact on the trail. When they simply roll over quickly, without braking or accelerating, there is LESS impact than from a hiker.

Impossible, as anyone with a knowledge of physics knows: unless you are travelling in a perfect straight line, you are ALWAYS accelerating, hence always causing erosion, and therefore always doing more harm than a hiker.

Like I said, stop awarding yourself points for stupidity and go and learn some physics. Look up "projection" in a dictionary of psychology. You just don't have the guts to admit that you are wrong. Or even to admit your own name! Idiot. Very funny ... from a lying, criminal and monomaniacal loon :-)

Name-calling is a sure sign of desperation. You can't possibly win, because you are just WRONG! It must be pretty embarrassing for a psychologist to understand physics better than you! Of course, it's easy, because you refuse to tell the truth.

Impossible, as anyone with a knowledge of physics knows: unless you are travelling in a perfect straight line, you are ALWAYS accelerating, hence always causing erosion, and therefore always doing more harm than a hiker.

You were doing so well until the end ... I almost thought you'd understood.

Yes, if the vector changes then you 'accelerate' in the physics sense. However, firstly, you are frequently travelling in a nearly straight line and, secondly, you're impacting far LESS than a hiker. Let me demonstrate for the hard of understanding ...

You walk over a 10m section of track vs you cycle over a 10m section of track

You are travelling at 15mph on the bike and 3mph walking

You generate 200 watts of power ... so you will accelerate if friction is lower than 200 watts and decelerate if lower.

Riding Walking
Power 200 200
Speed 15 3
Time on Trail 1.5s 7.5s
Energy Imparted to system 300Joules 1,500Joules

Additionally, since the biker is moving faster, they will encounter 25 times the air resistance.

So, the hiker will put a LOT more energy into the trail in friction than the rider. And that is exactly WHY bikes go faster for the same energy input ... they don't lose so much energy to friction.

Name-calling is a sure sign of desperation. You can't possibly win, because you are just WRONG! It must be pretty embarrassing for a psychologist to understand physics better than you! Of course, it's easy, because you refuse to tell the truth.

Ah, you think name calling is wrong now do you Mr Vandeman ? I take it that you will therefore be immediately ceasing your ad-hominem attacks and focussing just on the facts.

As to understanding physics better, if you were right then bikes would travel slower than walkers ... I suggest you go do some study.