A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Conbtinental has come out with a GP5000S and a GP5000TL



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old March 3rd 19, 10:32 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default Conbtinental has come out with a GP5000S and a GP5000TL

On Sun, 3 Mar 2019 15:52:00 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 3/3/2019 1:05 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 8:53:34 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/2/2019 7:52 PM,
wrote:
On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 4:45:12 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Would you accept answers from guys (or gals) that have taught physics?


After the crap you've been slinging around here the next thing I expect is for you to tell us all you're pregnant. And no, I wouldn't believe a single word out of your disabled brain.

I'm not surprised. You adamantly choose ignorance.


--
- Frank Krygowski


And you adamantly chose to ignore evidence that the world may not operate the way you think it should.


... as if F=m*a is my own daydream!

Tom, I'm wondering if there's any limit to the nonsense you'll believe.


Winston Churchill was said to have observed that the greatest argument
against the democratic political system was a five minute discussion
with the average voter.

He was apparently correct.

--
Cheers,
John B.


Ads
  #103  
Old March 5th 19, 03:13 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,283
Default Conbtinental has come out with a GP5000S and a GP5000TL

On 3/4/2019 5:38 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 12:52:01 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/3/2019 1:05 PM,
wrote:
On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 8:53:34 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/2/2019 7:52 PM,
wrote:
On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 4:45:12 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Would you accept answers from guys (or gals) that have taught physics?


After the crap you've been slinging around here the next thing I expect is for you to tell us all you're pregnant. And no, I wouldn't believe a single word out of your disabled brain.

I'm not surprised. You adamantly choose ignorance.


--
- Frank Krygowski

And you adamantly chose to ignore evidence that the world may not operate the way you think it should.


... as if F=m*a is my own daydream!

Tom, I'm wondering if there's any limit to the nonsense you'll believe.


--
- Frank Krygowski


This is E = 1/2MV^2 that you're thinking of I believe.


sigh No, Tom.

If you want to discuss this phenomenon of your in terms of kinetic
energy (therefore work done on the system), I suppose we can do that.
The result is the same: what you claim is simply not possible.

But especially since you claimed you experienced an acceleration, it's
far simpler to discuss this in terms of forces and resulting accelerations.

Acceleration is net force divided by mass, and is in the same direction
as the net force. If you're claiming a forward acceleration, you need an
applied force in the forward direction that's greater than the retarding
forces of air resistance and rolling resistance.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #105  
Old March 5th 19, 12:45 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Zen Cycle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 91
Default Conbtinental has come out with a GP5000S and a GP5000TL

On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 10:25:54 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 19:45:11 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 3/2/2019 11:53 AM, wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 6:11:48 PM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 3/1/2019 3:55 PM,
wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 9:32:15 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/1/2019 11:15 AM,
wrote:
On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 11:25:51 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/22/2019 1:39 PM,
wrote:
On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 6:31:09 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 1:46:38 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/21/2019 4:27 PM,
wrote:
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 1:10:42 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/21/2019 12:52 PM,
wrote:

Remember that I was describing the coast down test I had up
in Cull Canyon where I would coast down a really rough
section of road and then it would flatten out and when I
hit a 100 yard long patch of new and very smooth pavement
the bike would actually accelerate? Everyone wanted to
argue that wasn't possible but I did it again and again. As
the summer wore on the asphalt aged and got rougher and
though it was still pretty smooth the effect had
disappeared.

When you say the road "would flatten out" do you mean it was horizontal,
instead of downhill? Or do you mean the bumps went away and it remained
downhill?
--
- Frank Krygowski

It went downhill on a very rough road, flattened to
horizontal or at least the 0% grade indication on my
altimeter and then it climbed a bit before descending a
bike. The increase in speed was immediate upon entering the
smooth section and not a slow build up of speed as would come
from a declining road.

OK, if you were coasting and you had no tailwind that exceeded your
speed, you had nobody pushing you forward (which I've done for people
many times), and you had no rope towing you or some other weird situation...

And your bike actually accelerated when the road was horizontal? Yes,
that's impossible. Sorry, Tom, this is basic physics.

(And I had to include the rope tow because that was Jute's "deus ex
machina" on his first weird braggart tale here.)

Your story does, however, indicate the power of suggestion and how it
can mess with our perceptions.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank, if this is against physics why haven't you actually explained this to us?

To my way of thinking if E = 1/2M*V^2 and you reduce the
rolling resistance you coast for a longer distance to expend
the energy. But that isn't what happened. As I said - when I
hit the smooth pavement the bike increased its speed.

This was not a single case but multiple experiments and as the
smooth pavement degraded over the summer and grew rougher the
increasing speed disappeared at least to the level where it
wasn't detectable.

I think what Frank tries to say is that to be able to accelerate
there must be a driving force, one of Newtons laws. If you are
coasting on flat terrain without a tailwind there is no driving
force.

Exactly. In fact, there are retarding forces, those being air resistance
and rolling resistance, at a minimum.

And as to Tom's question, why haven't I explained it? I guess I
foolishly persist in believing that some things are obvious to educated
people.


--
- Frank Krygowski

So when faced by experimental fact you simply deny it. Seem like
most teachers. "That ain't what I believe so it didn't happen."
Real education there alright.

The reason that I mentioned this in the first place is because it
did not meet my understanding of physics. I tried this multiple
times with the same results. I expected that someone here would
have some explanation for it and instead some jackasses said that
it was impossible and my personal experience wasn't just incorrect
but a lie. This is the sort of people that inhabit this
site. Freaks like Slocumb that tell us what it is like in the US
after living most of his life in foreign countries and Frank who
was used to dictating "the truth" to students and thinks that the
whole world is now as stupid as his students were for not punching
his lights out.

A week ago I did the same route. The asphalt has now degraded to
the same consistency as that of the surrounding area and it acts
just as you would expect it to.

Yes, Tom, we foolishly persist in believing that F=m*a just because
Newton demonstrated it hundreds of years ago and it's been confirmed by
millions of measurements ever since.

We foolishly doubt a guy who claims he felt his bike accelerate when no
force was available to accelerate it, and when there had to be forces
decelerating it. And who has many times attested to his own bad memory.

Oh, and who now says the phenomenon has stopped, so his world has
returned to normal physics.

So we believe fundamental 10th grade science instead of your daydreams.
We are an odd bunch, all right!

--
- Frank Krygowski

Make another moronic statement. It makes you look so smart. I
actually measured that speed increase on the speedo. Initially I was
2 mph when I entered that section at 20. And it didn't increase as
if the flat was a little downhill but very rapidly. And as I said -
after the asphalt aged to the same roughness of the approach that
speed increase disappeared.

Which is why on really smooth surfaces, bicyclists never have to
pedal? You're spouting an entirely new level of nonsense.

There are spots at which it's hard to tell by eye whether the road is
ascending or descending, some sort of optical illusion.

--

I agree with you there but the acceleration was too rapid to be from gravity. I have asked a question over on the physics forum. Let's see if they have any answers.


Would you accept answers from guys (or gals) that have taught physics?


Would that be folks that are expert in the use of physic?


I'm just begging for tom to post the link to the forum where he asked the question. Make your popcorn before you click the link, ladies and gentlemen.....
  #106  
Old March 5th 19, 12:46 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Zen Cycle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 91
Default Conbtinental has come out with a GP5000S and a GP5000TL

On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 1:43:58 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/3/2019 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 7:02:56 PM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:
writes:

On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 6:11:48 PM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 3/1/2019 3:55 PM,
wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 9:32:15 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/1/2019 11:15 AM,
wrote:
On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 11:25:51 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/22/2019 1:39 PM,
wrote:
On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 6:31:09 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 1:46:38 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/21/2019 4:27 PM,
wrote:
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 1:10:42 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/21/2019 12:52 PM,
wrote:

Remember that I was describing the coast down test I had up
in Cull Canyon where I would coast down a really rough
section of road and then it would flatten out and when I
hit a 100 yard long patch of new and very smooth pavement
the bike would actually accelerate? Everyone wanted to
argue that wasn't possible but I did it again and again. As
the summer wore on the asphalt aged and got rougher and
though it was still pretty smooth the effect had
disappeared.

When you say the road "would flatten out" do you mean it was horizontal,
instead of downhill? Or do you mean the bumps went away and it remained
downhill?
--
- Frank Krygowski

It went downhill on a very rough road, flattened to
horizontal or at least the 0% grade indication on my
altimeter and then it climbed a bit before descending a
bike. The increase in speed was immediate upon entering the
smooth section and not a slow build up of speed as would come
from a declining road.

OK, if you were coasting and you had no tailwind that exceeded your
speed, you had nobody pushing you forward (which I've done for people
many times), and you had no rope towing you or some other weird situation...

And your bike actually accelerated when the road was horizontal? Yes,
that's impossible. Sorry, Tom, this is basic physics.

(And I had to include the rope tow because that was Jute's "deus ex
machina" on his first weird braggart tale here.)

Your story does, however, indicate the power of suggestion and how it
can mess with our perceptions.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank, if this is against physics why haven't you actually explained this to us?

To my way of thinking if E = 1/2M*V^2 and you reduce the
rolling resistance you coast for a longer distance to expend
the energy. But that isn't what happened. As I said - when I
hit the smooth pavement the bike increased its speed.

This was not a single case but multiple experiments and as the
smooth pavement degraded over the summer and grew rougher the
increasing speed disappeared at least to the level where it
wasn't detectable.

I think what Frank tries to say is that to be able to accelerate
there must be a driving force, one of Newtons laws. If you are
coasting on flat terrain without a tailwind there is no driving
force.

Exactly. In fact, there are retarding forces, those being air resistance
and rolling resistance, at a minimum.

And as to Tom's question, why haven't I explained it? I guess I
foolishly persist in believing that some things are obvious to educated
people.


--
- Frank Krygowski

So when faced by experimental fact you simply deny it. Seem like
most teachers. "That ain't what I believe so it didn't happen."
Real education there alright.

The reason that I mentioned this in the first place is because it
did not meet my understanding of physics. I tried this multiple
times with the same results. I expected that someone here would
have some explanation for it and instead some jackasses said that
it was impossible and my personal experience wasn't just incorrect
but a lie. This is the sort of people that inhabit this
site. Freaks like Slocumb that tell us what it is like in the US
after living most of his life in foreign countries and Frank who
was used to dictating "the truth" to students and thinks that the
whole world is now as stupid as his students were for not punching
his lights out.

A week ago I did the same route. The asphalt has now degraded to
the same consistency as that of the surrounding area and it acts
just as you would expect it to.

Yes, Tom, we foolishly persist in believing that F=m*a just because
Newton demonstrated it hundreds of years ago and it's been confirmed by
millions of measurements ever since.

We foolishly doubt a guy who claims he felt his bike accelerate when no
force was available to accelerate it, and when there had to be forces
decelerating it. And who has many times attested to his own bad memory.

Oh, and who now says the phenomenon has stopped, so his world has
returned to normal physics.

So we believe fundamental 10th grade science instead of your daydreams.
We are an odd bunch, all right!

--
- Frank Krygowski

Make another moronic statement. It makes you look so smart. I
actually measured that speed increase on the speedo. Initially I was
2 mph when I entered that section at 20. And it didn't increase as
if the flat was a little downhill but very rapidly. And as I said -
after the asphalt aged to the same roughness of the approach that
speed increase disappeared.

Which is why on really smooth surfaces, bicyclists never have to
pedal? You're spouting an entirely new level of nonsense.

There are spots at which it's hard to tell by eye whether the road is
ascending or descending, some sort of optical illusion.

--

I agree with you there but the acceleration was too rapid to be from
gravity. I have asked a question over on the physics forum. Let's see
if they have any answers.

Faster than even a significant grade would cause? It is hard to imagine
an explanation for that.

--


I put that out on the physics forum. No one had any answers but neither did they take the Frank line and say that I was crazy.


Maybe ask at alt.metaphysics ?


alt.tinfoilhat ?
  #107  
Old March 5th 19, 03:35 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,260
Default Conbtinental has come out with a GP5000S and a GP5000TL

On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 10:43:58 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/3/2019 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 7:02:56 PM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:
writes:

On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 6:11:48 PM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 3/1/2019 3:55 PM,
wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 9:32:15 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/1/2019 11:15 AM,
wrote:
On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 11:25:51 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/22/2019 1:39 PM,
wrote:
On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 6:31:09 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 1:46:38 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/21/2019 4:27 PM,
wrote:
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 1:10:42 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/21/2019 12:52 PM,
wrote:

Remember that I was describing the coast down test I had up
in Cull Canyon where I would coast down a really rough
section of road and then it would flatten out and when I
hit a 100 yard long patch of new and very smooth pavement
the bike would actually accelerate? Everyone wanted to
argue that wasn't possible but I did it again and again. As
the summer wore on the asphalt aged and got rougher and
though it was still pretty smooth the effect had
disappeared.

When you say the road "would flatten out" do you mean it was horizontal,
instead of downhill? Or do you mean the bumps went away and it remained
downhill?
--
- Frank Krygowski

It went downhill on a very rough road, flattened to
horizontal or at least the 0% grade indication on my
altimeter and then it climbed a bit before descending a
bike. The increase in speed was immediate upon entering the
smooth section and not a slow build up of speed as would come
from a declining road.

OK, if you were coasting and you had no tailwind that exceeded your
speed, you had nobody pushing you forward (which I've done for people
many times), and you had no rope towing you or some other weird situation...

And your bike actually accelerated when the road was horizontal? Yes,
that's impossible. Sorry, Tom, this is basic physics.

(And I had to include the rope tow because that was Jute's "deus ex
machina" on his first weird braggart tale here.)

Your story does, however, indicate the power of suggestion and how it
can mess with our perceptions.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank, if this is against physics why haven't you actually explained this to us?

To my way of thinking if E = 1/2M*V^2 and you reduce the
rolling resistance you coast for a longer distance to expend
the energy. But that isn't what happened. As I said - when I
hit the smooth pavement the bike increased its speed.

This was not a single case but multiple experiments and as the
smooth pavement degraded over the summer and grew rougher the
increasing speed disappeared at least to the level where it
wasn't detectable.

I think what Frank tries to say is that to be able to accelerate
there must be a driving force, one of Newtons laws. If you are
coasting on flat terrain without a tailwind there is no driving
force.

Exactly. In fact, there are retarding forces, those being air resistance
and rolling resistance, at a minimum.

And as to Tom's question, why haven't I explained it? I guess I
foolishly persist in believing that some things are obvious to educated
people.


--
- Frank Krygowski

So when faced by experimental fact you simply deny it. Seem like
most teachers. "That ain't what I believe so it didn't happen."
Real education there alright.

The reason that I mentioned this in the first place is because it
did not meet my understanding of physics. I tried this multiple
times with the same results. I expected that someone here would
have some explanation for it and instead some jackasses said that
it was impossible and my personal experience wasn't just incorrect
but a lie. This is the sort of people that inhabit this
site. Freaks like Slocumb that tell us what it is like in the US
after living most of his life in foreign countries and Frank who
was used to dictating "the truth" to students and thinks that the
whole world is now as stupid as his students were for not punching
his lights out.

A week ago I did the same route. The asphalt has now degraded to
the same consistency as that of the surrounding area and it acts
just as you would expect it to.

Yes, Tom, we foolishly persist in believing that F=m*a just because
Newton demonstrated it hundreds of years ago and it's been confirmed by
millions of measurements ever since.

We foolishly doubt a guy who claims he felt his bike accelerate when no
force was available to accelerate it, and when there had to be forces
decelerating it. And who has many times attested to his own bad memory.

Oh, and who now says the phenomenon has stopped, so his world has
returned to normal physics.

So we believe fundamental 10th grade science instead of your daydreams.
We are an odd bunch, all right!

--
- Frank Krygowski

Make another moronic statement. It makes you look so smart. I
actually measured that speed increase on the speedo. Initially I was
2 mph when I entered that section at 20. And it didn't increase as
if the flat was a little downhill but very rapidly. And as I said -
after the asphalt aged to the same roughness of the approach that
speed increase disappeared.

Which is why on really smooth surfaces, bicyclists never have to
pedal? You're spouting an entirely new level of nonsense.

There are spots at which it's hard to tell by eye whether the road is
ascending or descending, some sort of optical illusion.

--

I agree with you there but the acceleration was too rapid to be from
gravity. I have asked a question over on the physics forum. Let's see
if they have any answers.

Faster than even a significant grade would cause? It is hard to imagine
an explanation for that.

--


I put that out on the physics forum. No one had any answers but neither did they take the Frank line and say that I was crazy.


Maybe ask at alt.metaphysics ?

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


I went over to another physics forum and we discussed it and there turns out to be a very simple explanation - the speedo has a fairly long delay time showing accelerations. It is difficult to see elsewhere but accelerating down that descent under the forces of gravity and then in a relatively short period of time going on onto a smooth pavement makes it noticeable.

So what was happening is that when the pavement was new and smooth on the flats it was normal to look down at the speedo and see it "catching up". Then after that as the pavement aged the rolling resistance became higher and higher until the speed lost before very far onto the "smooth" section was high enough that the speed actually came down to the speed shown at the bottom of the descent.

Had even one of the morons here even wanted to discover what was going on we could have worked it out but Frank was being his a-hole self, Slocumb is an idiot simply writing to see his name in print and others are sucking Frank off.
  #108  
Old March 5th 19, 04:41 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,283
Default Conbtinental has come out with a GP5000S and a GP5000TL

On 3/5/2019 10:35 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 10:43:58 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/3/2019 12:02 PM,
wrote:
On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 7:02:56 PM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:
writes:

On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 6:11:48 PM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 3/1/2019 3:55 PM,
wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 9:32:15 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/1/2019 11:15 AM,
wrote:
On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 11:25:51 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/22/2019 1:39 PM,
wrote:
On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 6:31:09 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 1:46:38 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/21/2019 4:27 PM,
wrote:
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 1:10:42 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/21/2019 12:52 PM,
wrote:

Remember that I was describing the coast down test I had up
in Cull Canyon where I would coast down a really rough
section of road and then it would flatten out and when I
hit a 100 yard long patch of new and very smooth pavement
the bike would actually accelerate? Everyone wanted to
argue that wasn't possible but I did it again and again. As
the summer wore on the asphalt aged and got rougher and
though it was still pretty smooth the effect had
disappeared.

When you say the road "would flatten out" do you mean it was horizontal,
instead of downhill? Or do you mean the bumps went away and it remained
downhill?
--
- Frank Krygowski

It went downhill on a very rough road, flattened to
horizontal or at least the 0% grade indication on my
altimeter and then it climbed a bit before descending a
bike. The increase in speed was immediate upon entering the
smooth section and not a slow build up of speed as would come
from a declining road.

OK, if you were coasting and you had no tailwind that exceeded your
speed, you had nobody pushing you forward (which I've done for people
many times), and you had no rope towing you or some other weird situation...

And your bike actually accelerated when the road was horizontal? Yes,
that's impossible. Sorry, Tom, this is basic physics.

(And I had to include the rope tow because that was Jute's "deus ex
machina" on his first weird braggart tale here.)

Your story does, however, indicate the power of suggestion and how it
can mess with our perceptions.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank, if this is against physics why haven't you actually explained this to us?

To my way of thinking if E = 1/2M*V^2 and you reduce the
rolling resistance you coast for a longer distance to expend
the energy. But that isn't what happened. As I said - when I
hit the smooth pavement the bike increased its speed.

This was not a single case but multiple experiments and as the
smooth pavement degraded over the summer and grew rougher the
increasing speed disappeared at least to the level where it
wasn't detectable.

I think what Frank tries to say is that to be able to accelerate
there must be a driving force, one of Newtons laws. If you are
coasting on flat terrain without a tailwind there is no driving
force.

Exactly. In fact, there are retarding forces, those being air resistance
and rolling resistance, at a minimum.

And as to Tom's question, why haven't I explained it? I guess I
foolishly persist in believing that some things are obvious to educated
people.


--
- Frank Krygowski

So when faced by experimental fact you simply deny it. Seem like
most teachers. "That ain't what I believe so it didn't happen."
Real education there alright.

The reason that I mentioned this in the first place is because it
did not meet my understanding of physics. I tried this multiple
times with the same results. I expected that someone here would
have some explanation for it and instead some jackasses said that
it was impossible and my personal experience wasn't just incorrect
but a lie. This is the sort of people that inhabit this
site. Freaks like Slocumb that tell us what it is like in the US
after living most of his life in foreign countries and Frank who
was used to dictating "the truth" to students and thinks that the
whole world is now as stupid as his students were for not punching
his lights out.

A week ago I did the same route. The asphalt has now degraded to
the same consistency as that of the surrounding area and it acts
just as you would expect it to.

Yes, Tom, we foolishly persist in believing that F=m*a just because
Newton demonstrated it hundreds of years ago and it's been confirmed by
millions of measurements ever since.

We foolishly doubt a guy who claims he felt his bike accelerate when no
force was available to accelerate it, and when there had to be forces
decelerating it. And who has many times attested to his own bad memory.

Oh, and who now says the phenomenon has stopped, so his world has
returned to normal physics.

So we believe fundamental 10th grade science instead of your daydreams.
We are an odd bunch, all right!

--
- Frank Krygowski

Make another moronic statement. It makes you look so smart. I
actually measured that speed increase on the speedo. Initially I was
2 mph when I entered that section at 20. And it didn't increase as
if the flat was a little downhill but very rapidly. And as I said -
after the asphalt aged to the same roughness of the approach that
speed increase disappeared.

Which is why on really smooth surfaces, bicyclists never have to
pedal? You're spouting an entirely new level of nonsense.

There are spots at which it's hard to tell by eye whether the road is
ascending or descending, some sort of optical illusion.

--

I agree with you there but the acceleration was too rapid to be from
gravity. I have asked a question over on the physics forum. Let's see
if they have any answers.

Faster than even a significant grade would cause? It is hard to imagine
an explanation for that.

--

I put that out on the physics forum. No one had any answers but neither did they take the Frank line and say that I was crazy.


Maybe ask at alt.metaphysics ?

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


I went over to another physics forum and we discussed it and there turns out to be a very simple explanation - the speedo has a fairly long delay time showing accelerations. It is difficult to see elsewhere but accelerating down that descent under the forces of gravity and then in a relatively short period of time going on onto a smooth pavement makes it noticeable.

So what was happening is that when the pavement was new and smooth on the flats it was normal to look down at the speedo and see it "catching up". Then after that as the pavement aged the rolling resistance became higher and higher until the speed lost before very far onto the "smooth" section was high enough that the speed actually came down to the speed shown at the bottom of the descent.

So what brand of cyclometer are you using, that has a lag time measured
in multiple seconds?

And are you claiming your cyclometer actually displays an acceleration
value on its screen?

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #109  
Old March 5th 19, 05:10 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,260
Default Conbtinental has come out with a GP5000S and a GP5000TL

On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 8:41:47 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/5/2019 10:35 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 10:43:58 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/3/2019 12:02 PM,
wrote:
On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 7:02:56 PM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:
writes:

On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 6:11:48 PM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 3/1/2019 3:55 PM,
wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 9:32:15 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/1/2019 11:15 AM,
wrote:
On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 11:25:51 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/22/2019 1:39 PM,
wrote:
On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 6:31:09 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 1:46:38 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/21/2019 4:27 PM,
wrote:
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 1:10:42 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/21/2019 12:52 PM,
wrote:

Remember that I was describing the coast down test I had up
in Cull Canyon where I would coast down a really rough
section of road and then it would flatten out and when I
hit a 100 yard long patch of new and very smooth pavement
the bike would actually accelerate? Everyone wanted to
argue that wasn't possible but I did it again and again.. As
the summer wore on the asphalt aged and got rougher and
though it was still pretty smooth the effect had
disappeared.

When you say the road "would flatten out" do you mean it was horizontal,
instead of downhill? Or do you mean the bumps went away and it remained
downhill?
--
- Frank Krygowski

It went downhill on a very rough road, flattened to
horizontal or at least the 0% grade indication on my
altimeter and then it climbed a bit before descending a
bike. The increase in speed was immediate upon entering the
smooth section and not a slow build up of speed as would come
from a declining road.

OK, if you were coasting and you had no tailwind that exceeded your
speed, you had nobody pushing you forward (which I've done for people
many times), and you had no rope towing you or some other weird situation...

And your bike actually accelerated when the road was horizontal? Yes,
that's impossible. Sorry, Tom, this is basic physics.

(And I had to include the rope tow because that was Jute's "deus ex
machina" on his first weird braggart tale here.)

Your story does, however, indicate the power of suggestion and how it
can mess with our perceptions.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank, if this is against physics why haven't you actually explained this to us?

To my way of thinking if E = 1/2M*V^2 and you reduce the
rolling resistance you coast for a longer distance to expend
the energy. But that isn't what happened. As I said - when I
hit the smooth pavement the bike increased its speed.

This was not a single case but multiple experiments and as the
smooth pavement degraded over the summer and grew rougher the
increasing speed disappeared at least to the level where it
wasn't detectable.

I think what Frank tries to say is that to be able to accelerate
there must be a driving force, one of Newtons laws. If you are
coasting on flat terrain without a tailwind there is no driving
force.

Exactly. In fact, there are retarding forces, those being air resistance
and rolling resistance, at a minimum.

And as to Tom's question, why haven't I explained it? I guess I
foolishly persist in believing that some things are obvious to educated
people.


--
- Frank Krygowski

So when faced by experimental fact you simply deny it. Seem like
most teachers. "That ain't what I believe so it didn't happen."
Real education there alright.

The reason that I mentioned this in the first place is because it
did not meet my understanding of physics. I tried this multiple
times with the same results. I expected that someone here would
have some explanation for it and instead some jackasses said that
it was impossible and my personal experience wasn't just incorrect
but a lie. This is the sort of people that inhabit this
site. Freaks like Slocumb that tell us what it is like in the US
after living most of his life in foreign countries and Frank who
was used to dictating "the truth" to students and thinks that the
whole world is now as stupid as his students were for not punching
his lights out.

A week ago I did the same route. The asphalt has now degraded to
the same consistency as that of the surrounding area and it acts
just as you would expect it to.

Yes, Tom, we foolishly persist in believing that F=m*a just because
Newton demonstrated it hundreds of years ago and it's been confirmed by
millions of measurements ever since.

We foolishly doubt a guy who claims he felt his bike accelerate when no
force was available to accelerate it, and when there had to be forces
decelerating it. And who has many times attested to his own bad memory.

Oh, and who now says the phenomenon has stopped, so his world has
returned to normal physics.

So we believe fundamental 10th grade science instead of your daydreams.
We are an odd bunch, all right!

--
- Frank Krygowski

Make another moronic statement. It makes you look so smart. I
actually measured that speed increase on the speedo. Initially I was
2 mph when I entered that section at 20. And it didn't increase as
if the flat was a little downhill but very rapidly. And as I said -
after the asphalt aged to the same roughness of the approach that
speed increase disappeared.

Which is why on really smooth surfaces, bicyclists never have to
pedal? You're spouting an entirely new level of nonsense.

There are spots at which it's hard to tell by eye whether the road is
ascending or descending, some sort of optical illusion.

--

I agree with you there but the acceleration was too rapid to be from
gravity. I have asked a question over on the physics forum. Let's see
if they have any answers.

Faster than even a significant grade would cause? It is hard to imagine
an explanation for that.

--

I put that out on the physics forum. No one had any answers but neither did they take the Frank line and say that I was crazy.


Maybe ask at alt.metaphysics ?

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


I went over to another physics forum and we discussed it and there turns out to be a very simple explanation - the speedo has a fairly long delay time showing accelerations. It is difficult to see elsewhere but accelerating down that descent under the forces of gravity and then in a relatively short period of time going on onto a smooth pavement makes it noticeable.

So what was happening is that when the pavement was new and smooth on the flats it was normal to look down at the speedo and see it "catching up". Then after that as the pavement aged the rolling resistance became higher and higher until the speed lost before very far onto the "smooth" section was high enough that the speed actually came down to the speed shown at the bottom of the descent.

So what brand of cyclometer are you using, that has a lag time measured
in multiple seconds?

And are you claiming your cyclometer actually displays an acceleration
value on its screen?

--
- Frank Krygowski


Pm the brightest day of your life you're could perhaps compete with a slug for intellectual capacity.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.