WHOOPS! ANOTHER Dead Mountain Biker!

On Monday, June 24, 2013 2:22:51 PM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
You obviously never went to high school, where the rest of us learned that a guy on a a large piece of machinery travelling at high speed will have a much larger effect on the trail & people in its way than a hiker. DUH!!!!! Idiot. You forgot that the bike weighs a lot, and has knobby tires, which are designed to rip up the soil. But, hey, thanks for demonstrating for the billionth time just how STOOPID (i.e., worse than stupid) and dishonest mountain bikers are.



Well, you obviously weren't listening in physics ... score an F !

No, I got straight As in Honors Physics at one of the top universities in the world.

The increase in mass of a bike + rider vs just hiker is 12.5% (200lb rider, 25lb bike). So, a rider and a hiker arriving at the bottom of a 100ft (vertical drop) hill will have lost, respectively, 30.5kiloJoules of potential energy (rider) and 27kiloJoules (hiker). (Potential energy = mgh )

You are assuming that they travel the same distance, which is BS. Since the biker travels several times as far as the hiker, they do AT LEAST several times as much damage. They also go much faster, thus having more momentum, and hence applying more force to the trail -- hence, more erosion. DUH! You can't win this argument except by LYING.

BUT



The bike will probably be doing 25mph at the bottom and the hiker 4mph.



So, the rider still has 12.7kiloJoules of kinetic energy (mv2) whereas the hiker only 0.3kiloJoules.



So, the bike has converted a reasonable chunk of the potential energy to kinetic energy and the rest (17.8kJ) has been lost in friction with the air and the trail. Since air resistance goes up as a square the rider will have converted MUCH more energy to heat via air friction than the hiker.



The hiker, on the other hand, has lost 26.9kJ of energy and since it has nowhere else to go that is converted into work (physics term - look it up) done ON THE TRAIL.



So, in terms of trail impact travelling down that putative hill ... the hiker has done a lot MORE work on the trail and will therefore cause MORE erosion. Because any movement of sediment or soil requires ... ENERGY.



So, Mr F Stupid Student ... learn some bloody physics

Swearing is a sure sign that you have lost the argument. You know you can't win by rational argument.

before you spout more nonsense and accuse others of stupidity. It is bloody obvious to anyone with a brain that both the hiker and the biker have one human body to produce power to move. Biking vs hiking is likely to create DIFFERENT impacts because of the mechanics and how they work but the work done on the trail (the impact) MUST be broadly similar

That's not a scientific term, and is hence MEANINGLESS. I knew you would try to cheat, like ALL mountain bikers.

because there is no magic source of energy.



You can't even do arithmetic! Since the biker must stop, the kinetic energy is converted to work on the trail. 30.5 27 (your own figures), so the biker causes more erosion. The hiker simply packs compresses the soil, whereas the biker, with his knobby tires, rips it up! Hence, the biker causes more erosion. You also CONVENIENTLY ignored the fact that a mountain biker will generally travel several times as far as a hiker, multiplying his impact several times, hence MUCH greater than the hiker. I can't believe you ever passed a physics class in a decent school or college! I got straight As (the top score) in HONORS physics at UC Berkeley, one of the top universities in the WORLD.



Well, if you really did, once, get As then you will know that I am right .... in which case you're trolling. Or, and more likely, your brain has turned to mush over the years.



Firstly, the energy is 12.5% higher ... I already said that. However, more will be lost to air friction than by the hiker so the net friction on the trail won't be 12.5% higher in the end. I was being specific about impact on the hill.



On impact on the whole trail, assuming equal power output (one human power) the total work done on the trail MUST be the same. A bike generates LESS friction on the trail because this is exactly how bikes work ... they convert more of the riders output to forward motion than walking.



One of your standard diatribes, from your own website, is that "mountain bikes ... crush small plants and animals on and under the trail". Well, you have just conceded that, actually, hikers put more force down into the trail ... which is the case.



A bike tyre is no more likely to 'rip' the trail than a lugged walking boot

Only a fool would wear a lugged boot for hiking. It's totally unnecessary. Knobby tires are DESIGNED to rip up the soil, and do.

and, as I already demonstrated, when walking down a hill the hiker will impact more.



As I said, the specifics of the impact are going to be varied depending on nature of the trail, water, fitness of the rider/hiker etc etc etc. However, overall, you can't avoid that the power output is the same ... so the impact will be broadly the same. Mountain bikers might travel further but they impact the trail, per metre, less than a hiker partly because ... and this should be obvious to you if you really know physics ... they move faster and hence the force is applied for less time than a hiker.

Irrelevant. They apply more force to the trail, hence do more erosion, per meter and in total. You know I'm right, you just aren't MAN enough to admit it.

Awaiting your apology....



For what ? Pointing out that you haven't really thought through your position and can't justify it when challenged ?

For LYING.

And you would know about lying wouldn't you criminal?

On Monday, June 24, 2013 7:45:53 PM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote:
And you would know about lying wouldn't you criminal?

Enough to recognize that mountain bikers lie more than any other group.

Again you have no statistically significant evidence for this. More hot air old chum.

On Monday, June 24, 2013 11:52:12 PM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote:
Again you have no statistically significant evidence for this. More hot air old chum.

Yes, I do: THOUSANDS of conversations with idiots like you. Thanks for demonstrating your propensity to lie, once again. You simply CAN'T STOP!

On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 3:37:00 AM UTC+12, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Monday, June 24, 2013 11:52:12 PM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote:

Again you have no statistically significant evidence for this. More hot air old chum.



Yes, I do: THOUSANDS of conversations with idiots like you. Thanks for demonstrating your propensity to lie, once again. You simply CAN'T STOP!

Nice use of capitals old chum. Did you teach your fellow criminals the use of capitals to add effect?

On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 9:13:37 AM UTC+12, I love Mike wrote:
On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 3:37:00 AM UTC+12, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Monday, June 24, 2013 11:52:12 PM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote:



Again you have no statistically significant evidence for this. More hot air old chum.







Yes, I do: THOUSANDS of conversations with idiots like you. Thanks for demonstrating your propensity to lie, once again. You simply CAN'T STOP!



Nice use of capitals old chum. Did you teach your fellow criminals the use of capitals to add effect?

Again the poorly constructed nature of your reply indicates you don't understand science!!!!!!

No, I got straight As in Honors Physics at one of the top universities in the world.

In which case, you know that I'm right and you're just trolling because the results don't suit your agenda.

The increase in mass of a bike + rider vs just hiker is 12.5% (200lb rider, 25lb bike). So, a rider and a hiker arriving at the bottom of a 100ft (vertical drop) hill will have lost, respectively, 30.5kiloJoules of potential energy (rider) and 27kiloJoules (hiker). (Potential energy = mgh )

You are assuming that they travel the same distance, which is BS. Since the biker travels several times as far as the hiker, they do AT LEAST several times as much damage. They also go much faster, thus having more momentum, and hence applying more force to the trail -- hence, more erosion. DUH! You can't win this argument except by LYING.

Where do I make any assumptions about distance ?

This diatribe here would get you a Z ... it's too dumb for an F.

Where the heck did that momentum come from ? There is no external energy source. And momentum has a vector ... forward does not translate down. Bikes convert more energy to forward momentum because LESS energy is lost in friction with the trial and work done vertically (down) through the trail.

So, yes, bikers go further BUT they impact vertically on the trail LESS. This is the fundamental point of the mechanics of why a bike works. It doesn't magically deliver any more energy ... an elite runner and an elite rider will both output roughly the same in any given period ... but the bike will convert it much more efficiently to forward motion instead of work done ON THE TRAIL.

Swearing is a sure sign that you have lost the argument. You know you can't win by rational argument.

Can you say hypocrisy ?

Biking vs hiking is likely to create DIFFERENT impacts because of the mechanics and how they work but the work done on the trail (the impact) MUST be broadly similar

That's not a scientific term, and is hence MEANINGLESS. I knew you would try to cheat, like ALL mountain bikers.

Oh right, then your entire sentence above is not a scientific term and is hence meaningless ... do stop writing at once. This is a comment and a conversation so general english usage is the norm ... it's not a paper ... although, come to think of it, it's probably more erudite and well-reasoned than most of your papers.

A bike tyre is no more likely to 'rip' the trail than a lugged walking boot

Only a fool would wear a lugged boot for hiking. It's totally unnecessary.. Knobby tires are DESIGNED to rip up the soil, and do.

Standard walking boots are lugged ... to provide traction and grip. Where do you buy yours ?

As I said, the specifics of the impact are going to be varied depending on nature of the trail, water, fitness of the rider/hiker etc etc etc. However, overall, you can't avoid that the power output is the same ... so the impact will be broadly the same. Mountain bikers might travel further but they impact the trail, per metre, less than a hiker partly because ... and this should be obvious to you if you really know physics ... they move faster and hence the force is applied for less time than a hiker.

Irrelevant. They apply more force to the trail, hence do more erosion, per meter and in total. You know I'm right, you just aren't MAN enough to admit it.

Yes Mike (steps back slowly) it's true just because you say it is. Despite the physics of motion backing me up let's all agree you're right shall we ?

You keep making assertions but you don't back them up with any proof ... the physics predicts that the impacts are similar, the research finds that impacts are similar but, despite all this, you assert that you're right.

Awaiting your apology....

For what ? Pointing out that you haven't really thought through your position and can't justify it when challenged ?

For LYING.

Where Mike ? Actually, I think the world might be lying, at least by your definition, because it clearly doesn't work the way you want it to.

On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 4:07:34 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
No, I got straight As in Honors Physics at one of the top universities in the world.



In which case, you know that I'm right and you're just trolling because the results don't suit your agenda.



The increase in mass of a bike + rider vs just hiker is 12.5% (200lb rider, 25lb bike). So, a rider and a hiker arriving at the bottom of a 100ft (vertical drop) hill will have lost, respectively, 30.5kiloJoules of potential energy (rider) and 27kiloJoules (hiker). (Potential energy = mgh )



You are assuming that they travel the same distance, which is BS. Since the biker travels several times as far as the hiker, they do AT LEAST several times as much damage. They also go much faster, thus having more momentum, and hence applying more force to the trail -- hence, more erosion. DUH! You can't win this argument except by LYING.



Where do I make any assumptions about distance ?

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

This diatribe here would get you a Z ... it's too dumb for an F.



Where the heck did that momentum come from ? There is no external energy source. And momentum has a vector ... forward does not translate down. Bikes convert more energy to forward momentum because LESS energy is lost in friction with the trial and work done vertically (down) through the trail.

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!

So, yes, bikers go further BUT they impact vertically on the trail LESS. This is the fundamental point of the mechanics of why a bike works. It doesn't magically deliver any more energy ... an elite runner and an elite rider will both output roughly the same in any given period ... but the bike will convert it much more efficiently to forward motion instead of work done ON THE TRAIL.



Swearing is a sure sign that you have lost the argument. You know you can't win by rational argument.



Can you say hypocrisy ?



Biking vs hiking is likely to create DIFFERENT impacts because of the mechanics and how they work but the work done on the trail (the impact) MUST be broadly similar



That's not a scientific term, and is hence MEANINGLESS. I knew you would try to cheat, like ALL mountain bikers.



Oh right, then your entire sentence above is not a scientific term and is hence meaningless ... do stop writing at once. This is a comment and a conversation so general english usage is the norm ... it's not a paper ... although, come to think of it, it's probably more erudite and well-reasoned than most of your papers.



A bike tyre is no more likely to 'rip' the trail than a lugged walking boot



Only a fool would wear a lugged boot for hiking. It's totally unnecessary. Knobby tires are DESIGNED to rip up the soil, and do.



Standard walking boots are lugged ... to provide traction and grip. Where do you buy yours ?



As I said, the specifics of the impact are going to be varied depending on nature of the trail, water, fitness of the rider/hiker etc etc etc. However, overall, you can't avoid that the power output is the same ... so the impact will be broadly the same. Mountain bikers might travel further but they impact the trail, per metre, less than a hiker partly because ... and this should be obvious to you if you really know physics ... they move faster and hence the force is applied for less time than a hiker.



Irrelevant. They apply more force to the trail, hence do more erosion, per meter and in total. You know I'm right, you just aren't MAN enough to admit it.



Yes Mike (steps back slowly) it's true just because you say it is. Despite the physics of motion backing me up let's all agree you're right shall we ?



You keep making assertions but you don't back them up with any proof ... the physics predicts that the impacts are similar, the research finds that impacts are similar but, despite all this, you assert that you're right.



Awaiting your apology....



For what ? Pointing out that you haven't really thought through your position and can't justify it when challenged ?



For LYING.



Where Mike ? Actually, I think the world might be lying, at least by your definition, because it clearly doesn't work the way you want it to.

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 ! 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.