WHOOPS! ANOTHER Dead Mountain Biker!

Still no retraction of your statement about hikers producing more heat ? :-) :-) :-) :-)

On Monday, July 8, 2013 10:38:48 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
That's obvious hogwash. So a biker running into you at 25 MPH will cause less damage than a hiker running into you at 2 MPH?! Idiot. Oh for goodness sake. You're not 'running into' the ground are you ? You are completely forgetting that momentum has a vector (look it up).

No, YOU are. The motion is forward (horizontal) in both cases. If a biker runs into you ar 25 MPH, it will obviously do more damage than a hiker running into you at 2 MPH. In both cases it's the horizontal momentum, which is also what causes erosion. That's why mountain bikers cause more erosion than hikers, besides the fact that they travel farther, which multiplies the difference even more.

Would you rather I rode over your foot or stopped on top of it ? That's the analagous event .. not a collision. 2. Hikers tracks are not 'invisible'. We did a quick test on some soft ground this weekend; walked a section and then rode it. As predicted, the footprints are deeper than the tyre prints because the weight is applied for longer to a given point. You're a disgrace to the science ... you're so caught up in what you want the results to be that you can't think straight. As usual, you conveniently forgot to mention that the biker travels several times as far as the hiker, so you have to multiply their impacts several times. Hence, the biker does more total damage. DUH! The impact will be, overall, DIRECTLY related to the amount of work done ... the energy imparted by the hiker or rider ... which is determined by power output and time. So, if the rider goes further in the same time period

We never said that the time period is the same. You are LYING. Idiot.

they will impact each quantum of trail less ... but there will be more quanta. Unless you can violate conservation of energy, one of the most fundamental of universal laws, there is only the output of one person whether riding or hiking.

Vandeman. Yawn.

Oh for goodness sake. You're not 'running into' the ground are you ? You are completely forgetting that momentum has a vector (look it up).

No, YOU are. The motion is forward (horizontal) in both cases. If a biker runs into you ar 25 MPH, it will obviously do more damage than a hiker running into you at 2 MPH. In both cases it's the horizontal momentum, which is also what causes erosion. That's why mountain bikers cause more erosion than hikers, besides the fact that they travel farther, which multiplies the difference even more.

Oh, this is going to be good ... do please explain to me how horizontal motion causes erosion Mike :-).

Would you rather I rode over your foot or stopped on top of it ? That's the analagous event .. not a collision. 2. Hikers tracks are not 'invisible'. We did a quick test on some soft ground this weekend; walked a section and then rode it. As predicted, the footprints are deeper than the tyre prints because the weight is applied for longer to a given point. You're a disgrace to the science ... you're so caught up in what you want the results to be that you can't think straight. As usual, you conveniently forgot to mention that the biker travels several times as far as the hiker, so you have to multiply their impacts several times. Hence, the biker does more total damage. DUH! The impact will be, overall, DIRECTLY related to the amount of work done ... the energy imparted by the hiker or rider ... which is determined by power output and time. So, if the rider goes further in the same time period

We never said that the time period is the same. You are LYING. Idiot.

"We" never said anything ... all of my utterances are entirely my own and not to be confused with your drivel.

I said that in the same time period a rider would go further ... care to dispute that ? Would be interesting since you keep on saying it but, hey, I've seen you debate yourself before.

Read the physics books, reacquaint yourself with the equations of motion, understand how work is done vertically and friction applied horizontally and ACTUALLY DO THE BLOODY MATHS. Then, when you've done all that, maybe we can have a sensible conversation. Until then, you're like a kid sticking his tongue out and saying "isn't so" when he clearly doesn't understand what the hell he's talking about.

On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 2:11:31 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
Oh for goodness sake. You're not 'running into' the ground are you ? You are completely forgetting that momentum has a vector (look it up). No, YOU are. The motion is forward (horizontal) in both cases. If a biker runs into you ar 25 MPH, it will obviously do more damage than a hiker running into you at 2 MPH. In both cases it's the horizontal momentum, which is also what causes erosion. That's why mountain bikers cause more erosion than hikers, besides the fact that they travel farther, which multiplies the difference even more. Oh, this is going to be good ... do please explain to me how horizontal motion causes erosion

And you claim to have studied physics?! The tires apply horizontal forces on the ground, which is what propels the bike forward and turns it. That is what causes erosion: as the bike is propelled forward, the dirt is propelled backwards. As the bike turns left, the dirt is forced right. Etc. DUH!

Mike :-). Would you rather I rode over your foot or stopped on top of it ? That's the analagous event .. not a collision. 2. Hikers tracks are not 'invisible'. We did a quick test on some soft ground this weekend; walked a section and then rode it. As predicted, the footprints are deeper than the tyre prints because the weight is applied for longer to a given point. You're a disgrace to the science ... you're so caught up in what you want the results to be that you can't think straight. As usual, you conveniently forgot to mention that the biker travels several times as far as the hiker, so you have to multiply their impacts several times. Hence, the biker does more total damage. DUH! The impact will be, overall, DIRECTLY related to the amount of work done ... the energy imparted by the hiker or rider ... which is determined by power output and time. So, if the rider goes further in the same time period We never said that the time period is the same. You are LYING. Idiot. "We" never said anything ... all of my utterances are entirely my own and not to be confused with your drivel. I said that in the same time period a rider would go further ... care to dispute that ? Would be interesting since you keep on saying it but, hey, I've seen you debate yourself before. Read the physics books, reacquaint yourself with the equations of motion, understand how work is done vertically and friction applied horizontally and ACTUALLY DO THE BLOODY MATHS. Then, when you've done all that, maybe we can have a sensible conversation. Until then, you're like a kid sticking his tongue out and saying "isn't so" when he clearly doesn't understand what the hell he's talking about.

Oh, this is going to be good ... do please explain to me how horizontal motion causes erosion

And you claim to have studied physics?! The tires apply horizontal forces on the ground, which is what propels the bike forward and turns it. That is what causes erosion: as the bike is propelled forward, the dirt is propelled backwards. As the bike turns left, the dirt is forced right. Etc. DUH!

You didn't answer the question I asked. I didn't ask you how acceleration or turning generated erosion ... I asked you to explain how horizontal MOTION caused erosion.

What you have inadvertently managed to point out is that when a bike is not turning or accelerating it generates very little friction and hence erosion.

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 5:04:39 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
Oh, this is going to be good ... do please explain to me how horizontal motion causes erosion And you claim to have studied physics?! The tires apply horizontal forces on the ground, which is what propels the bike forward and turns it. That is what causes erosion: as the bike is propelled forward, the dirt is propelled backwards. As the bike turns left, the dirt is forced right. Etc. DUH! You didn't answer the question I asked. I didn't ask you how acceleration or turning generated erosion ... I asked you to explain how horizontal MOTION caused erosion. What you have inadvertently managed to point out is that when a bike is not turning or accelerating it generates very little friction and hence erosion.

Thanks for demonstrating your dishonesty and total ignorance of physics. A mountain bike NEVER goes in a perfectly straight line, so it is ALWAYS accelerating/decelerating, and hence causing erosion. Since it experiences friction, even if the rider does nothing, it will slow down, so it must be continually pedalled (accelerated). Mountain bike tires have very high rolling resistance, and continually tear up the ground (i.e., cause erosion). That is easy to see, wherever there are mountain bike tracks. Vandeman STILL 1000, mountain bikers ZERO.

And this is the fundamental point, which I'm not sure you understand, but which explains WHY bikes turn the same power source, a human being, into MORE forward motion than walking ... LESS energy disappears into friction with the ground and MORE energy is turned into forward motion. Thanks for making my point for me :-)

Thanks for demonstrating your dishonesty and total ignorance of physics. A mountain bike NEVER goes in a perfectly straight line, so it is ALWAYS accelerating/decelerating, and hence causing erosion. Since it experiences friction, even if the rider does nothing, it will slow down, so it must be continually pedalled (accelerated). Mountain bike tires have very high rolling resistance, and continually tear up the ground (i.e., cause erosion). That is easy to see, wherever there are mountain bike tracks. Vandeman STILL 1000, mountain bikers ZERO.

I would hesitate to award yourself points unless it's for trolling.

I've not said, anywhere, that riding doesn't generate friction. You really should learn to read carefully. I'm trying to educate you in HOW ... and where it differs from a hiker.

Mountain bikes go faster, from the SAME POWER SOURCE, so it is therefore axiomatic that they encounter LESS friction than a hiker. If they encountered more, they would not travel further and faster than a hiker FOR THE SAME ENERGY OUTPUT.

The reason this is the case is that simple motion, on a bike, generates very little friction ... it's acceleration that does so as you have now finally admitted.

You can't win this one without breaking the fundamental law of conservation of energy ...

Fixed power (one human being)

Human being rides bicycle;
- Lower friction on trail
- Less work done vertically on the trail
- More energy converted to forward motion
- More air friction

Human being walks;
- Much higher friction on trail
- More work done vertically on the trail
- Much less energy converted to forward motion
- Less air friction

Try and refute any of those statements !

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 10:57:53 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
Thanks for demonstrating your dishonesty and total ignorance of physics.. A mountain bike NEVER goes in a perfectly straight line, so it is ALWAYS accelerating/decelerating, and hence causing erosion. Since it experiences friction, even if the rider does nothing, it will slow down, so it must be continually pedalled (accelerated). Mountain bike tires have very high rolling resistance, and continually tear up the ground (i.e., cause erosion). That is easy to see, wherever there are mountain bike tracks. Vandeman STILL 1000, mountain bikers ZERO. I would hesitate to award yourself points unless it's for trolling. I've not said, anywhere, that riding doesn't generate friction. You really should learn to read carefully. I'm trying to educate you in HOW ... and where it differs from a hiker. Mountain bikes go faster, from the SAME POWER SOURCE, so it is therefore axiomatic that they encounter LESS friction than a hiker. If they encountered more, they would not travel further and faster than a hiker FOR THE SAME ENERGY OUTPUT. The reason this is the case is that simple motion, on a bike, generates very little friction ... it's acceleration that does so as you have now finally admitted.. You can't win this one without breaking the fundamental law of conservation of energy ... Fixed power (one human being) Human being rides bicycle; - Lower friction on trail - Less work done vertically on the trail - More energy converted to forward motion - More air friction Human being walks; - Much higher friction on trail - More work done vertically on the trail - Much less energy converted to forward motion - Less air friction Try and refute any of those statements !

It's not surprizing that you keep changing the subject, each time you lose the argument. Sincce mountain bikers go faster, they have greater momentum & hence exert greater force on the trail -- hence more erosion. Then multiply by how much farther they travel, and it becomes obvious (to any HONEST person, which doesn't include mountain bikers) that mountain bikers do FAR more damage than hikers. Vandeman still 1000, mountain bikers ZERO. Go ahead, change the subject again. It only proves that you lost the argument, and can't face the music, COWARD.

On Thursday, July 11, 2013 9:57:17 AM UTC+12, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 10:57:53 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:

Thanks for demonstrating your dishonesty and total ignorance of physics. A mountain bike NEVER goes in a perfectly straight line, so it is ALWAYS accelerating/decelerating, and hence causing erosion. Since it experiences friction, even if the rider does nothing, it will slow down, so it must be continually pedalled (accelerated). Mountain bike tires have very high rolling resistance, and continually tear up the ground (i.e., cause erosion). That is easy to see, wherever there are mountain bike tracks. Vandeman STILL 1000, mountain bikers ZERO. I would hesitate to award yourself points unless it's for trolling. I've not said, anywhere, that riding doesn't generate friction. You really should learn to read carefully. I'm trying to educate you in HOW ... and where it differs from a hiker. Mountain bikes go faster, from the SAME POWER SOURCE, so it is therefore axiomatic that they encounter LESS friction than a hiker. If they encountered more, they would not travel further and faster than a hiker FOR THE SAME ENERGY OUTPUT. The reason this is the case is that simple motion, on a bike, generates very little friction ... it's acceleration that does so as you have now finally admitted. You can't win this one without breaking the fundamental law of conservation of energy ... Fixed power (one human being) Human being rides bicycle; - Lower friction on trail - Less work done vertically on the trail - More energy converted to forward motion - More air friction Human being walks; - Much higher friction on trail - More work done vertically on the trail - Much less energy converted to forward motion - Less air friction Try and refute any of those statements !



It's not surprizing that you keep changing the subject, each time you lose the argument. Sincce mountain bikers go faster, they have greater momentum & hence exert greater force on the trail -- hence more erosion. Then multiply by how much farther they travel, and it becomes obvious (to any HONEST person, which doesn't include mountain bikers) that mountain bikers do FAR more damage than hikers. Vandeman still 1000, mountain bikers ZERO. Go ahead, change the subject again. It only proves that you lost the argument, and can't face the music, COWARD.

DO YOU ALWAYS USE CAPITALS WHEN YOU ARE LOSING THE ARGUMENT VANDEMAN? By the way if scoring is so important to you how many mountain bikers have been arrested for attacking hikers?