WHOOPS! ANOTHER Dead Mountain Biker!

Hahaha. I like it how Vandeman tries to use his phd to give credibility to anything he says or does such as assaulting people. See below clip:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UzwYMn7fDrI

The man is clearly delusional.

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 8:35:15 PM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote:
That is hardly a well known publication old chum. It is very obscure. What's more the article contains little empirical evidence to support your claims. Do you know what science is old chum? You seem to be struggling with it. Maybe you should go get a phd in conservation biology, do some real field research then get published in an esteemed journal.

Thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance of everything. It's a BOOK. Nothing "obscure" about it, except in your mind.

On Friday, June 21, 2013 2:09:39 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
On Friday, June 21, 2013 3:59:01 AM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 12:38:10 PM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote:



If your analysis is unbiased then why hasn't it been published in conservation biology, environmental conservation or biodiversity and conservation or another top journAl? Maybe there is a reason why it has not been published in a top journal - it is worthless.







As you well know, even if it were published, you still wouldn't accept it, because you aren't honest. You still haven't accepted my paper which WAS published!: Vandeman, Michael J. ), 2008. The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Amphibians and Reptiles. In Urban Herpetology. J. C. Mitchell, R. E. Jung Brown, and B. Bartholomew, editors. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological Conservation 3:155-156; expanded version also available at http://mjvande.nfshost.com/herp.htm.



This was Mike's one, and only so far, success in getting into publication.. He wrote the piece in 2005 and it was published in 2008. It's two pages of page-filler in a book which is almost entirely unrelated to natural resource management. The piece itself is worthless on every level;

Thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance once again. If it were "worthless", the SCIENTISTS who edited the book would never have invited me to contribute to it, much less published it.

it begs the question from the start and is basically a standard Vandeman diatribe about mountain biking with added bits about amphibians and reptiles (so as to get in the book).



Since that mighty oeuvre ... deafening silence :-)

On Friday, June 21, 2013 3:58:48 AM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote:
Hahaha. I like it how Vandeman tries to use his phd to give credibility to anything he says or does such as assaulting people.

It never happened, as you well know, LIAR.

See below clip:



http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UzwYMn7fDrI



The man is clearly delusional.

Nice use of capitals mike did you learn that at university?

It is worthless as it has no data.

Thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance once again. If it were "worthless", the SCIENTISTS who edited the book would never have invited me to contribute to it, much less published it.

It's totally worthless. Standard diatribe, begging the question and no objective research.

And I very much doubt you were personally 'invited' to contribute. You probably did your usual response to a call for submissions and you managed to sneak this one in because they didn't check too carefully. And, tellingly, have you been 'invited' to contribute again or is this your one, and only, publication ? Face it Vandeman, no one will ever publish you again (unless you setup your own publishing company) !

couldn't help it....his hatred of mountain bikers compared to religious zealots on suicide runs is some funny ****... So your 70 years old, well not too long from now you'll be gone and I'll be still riding my bike...so have a nice hateful life. Goes to show age=/=wisdom.

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 !

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 )

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 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 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 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.

Awaiting your apology....

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

Great post. No doubt Vanderpsycho will accuse you of being a liar or use capitals to add emphasis.