Need Motivation To Lean More?

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by dfox

You're saying the same thing as I am, except you're putting the chicken before the egg, per se.

The braking force, as you seem to be describing as increased friction force in the front tire, is not due to increased surface area, it's due to increased mass. What gives the front tire greater grip in a braking situation, is the fact that there is a change in momentum, and the dynamic affect of the suspension moves the center of gravity towards the front wheel. The m in f=mu*m*a goes up. That's why the front tire has more traction, not because the contact patch is larger. The braking force would be larger even if you had a completely soid wheel that didn't deform under higher loading because of the increased mass. Again, contact patch doesnt matter.

And what I am referring to as static, is the tire and the ground. You do not enter kinetic friction until you lose traction. Tires are always considered being in a static state, and the motorcycle is seen as being an indpendent object acting in a dynamic matter on the tires. What changes in a braking or turning situation is the mass or acceleration in the static friction force calculation. It doesn't all of the sudden revert you into a kinetic friction situation, unless of course you would prefer to low side.

What are you smoking? Increased mass? Lol.

Lookout capt! Your Higgs boson is showing!

[Domagoj]

@dfox - being an engineer, I'm positive that one of the first things you learned was that all formulae we use to describe the events in nature are approximations. Maybe better, what we describe with math are ideal theoretical situations, which in real life do not exist.

All the irregularities which you so happily dismissed as irrelevant are actually what's relevant, and they are the reason for different types of tire compounds and threads for different surfaces, be that asphalt, wet asphalt, gravel, mud, snow, ice, etc.

The theoretical formula gives some sort of orientation, but what should be considered as main means of increase of friction force, is increasing pressure by increasing normal force, and increasing friction coefficient.

Normal force can be increased effectively only with downforce, which bikes unfortunately don't have. So we are stuck with friction coefficient.

Coefficient is the tricky one; the formula is so simple that the coefficient actually contains all the "hidden" factors. The typical example here would be the large grooves in snow tires; they act as a scoop of sorts, and provide for better friction coefficient. The dillema is the tire size - make them too thin, and you will not have enough grooves; make them too wide, and you will not have enough pressure to force the tires into the snow and scoop.

Dry asphalt coefficients depend mostly on tire compound. When warmed up, the compund becomes sticky. Put your hand on the warm tires, with minimal pressure, and the effect is similar to touching an extremely crappy adhesive tape (on the sticky side ). Of course, as with snow, make the contact patch too large and there will be no pressure left at all, which will decrease friction force. Make the patch too small, and your coefficient will decrease and friction force will decrease.
The type of asphalt is also of great importance. Smooth and glassy stuff is terrible, because there aren't any grooves and small irregularities for the soft compound to "penetrate" into, and effectively increase the coefficient further. Quite rough asphalt used on racetracks is perfect, because the soft tire has many grooves to fill, and the coefficient is greatly increased.

Everything is as usual a big compromise, and that simple friction force formula is not enough to describe the effects accurately enough.

[dfox]

Originally Posted by alex.s

What are you smoking? Increased mass? Lol.

the center of gravity shifts, therefore, the front tire sees increased mass, the rear tire sees decreased mass. I'm sure you can understand properly loading and unloading of the front tire, what exactly do you think is happening?

[dfox]

Originally Posted by Domagoj

Everything is as usual a big compromise, and that simple friction force formula is not enough to describe the effects accurately enough.

I am not in disagreement with you, in anything you said. I think you can also agree that simplifying a situation helps everyone better understand the big picture. We could get into tire deformation and all sorts of other discussions that are marginally relevant. I have stated all along that there are other, smaller factors that are not being considered.

I am simply stating that you can't increase your friction force by obtaining a larger contact patch. I'm sure you can agree with me in that statement.


for anyone else in disagreement, what happens when you have decreased tire pressure? does your handling ability go up, or down? low tire pressure means increased contact patch, which doesn't mean increased friction forces.

[Domagoj]

Originally Posted by dfox

I think you can also agree that simplifying a situation helps everyone better understand the big picture.

I really don't know. Hard decision that one. Truly.

Originally Posted by dfox

I am simply stating that you can't increase your friction force by obtaining a larger contact patch. I'm sure you can agree with me in that statement.

That depends on the tire and surface type. It is my belief that with race or very soft road tires you do get extra friction with bigger patch, assuming that tires are warmed up.
I'd rather compare race tires and asphalt to simply trying to glue two parts of anything together. Would you like to have just one drop of glue or distribute as much as possible on both surfaces, and press with equal force?
Within reason of course. Neither are we literally gluing anything nor can the meager bike weight provide sufficient pressure for enormous contact patch.

Smooth asphalt and cold touring tires, and cold road, are way closer to "conventional" friction formula behaviour I believe. In this case I think the friction actually decreases if the patch is growing.

Originally Posted by dfox

for anyone else in disagreement, what happens when you have decreased tire pressure? does your handling ability go up, or down? low tire pressure means increased contact patch, which doesn't mean increased friction forces.

If you decrease the pressure a little, you get a bit more friction at the cost of mushier feeling. If you inflate them too much you feel everything but loose some of the friction. All within reason. 2-3 psi up or down. Not 20. With soft tires. Actually it is somewhat more personal prefference than actual measurable gain perhaps. Not sure.

[dfox]

false. increased tire patch does not increase the available friction force. How many high school level physics experiments are done to prove that?

melting tires are a condition that I am not going to delve into, because I don't know enough about it mathematically. Like a drag race, wider tires DO make a difference if you're melting the material. This is not the condition that 99% of us drive in 99% of the time.

stubborn point of views with no proof are annoying, so I'm done. take the physics, or leave it, and ride conservatively on the street.

[Motofool]

Originally Posted by dfox

.........stubborn point of views with no proof are annoying, so I'm done. take the physics, or leave it, and ride conservatively on the street.

Please, don't get mad, Dfox; we all are a little stubborn.

Your points are valid and so are everybody's else up to some point.

In reality, not many people know much about the complex and dynamic process that occurs between a motorcycle tire and the pavement, especially during extreme lean angles, extreme forces and extreme deformations.

Tire manufacturers know it, since they make a living out of it; but they keep it for themselves and protected from the fierce competition.

Some have introduced variable sectional radius, so the radius is bigger towards the edges, gaining some patch area during extreme lean angles.

The volubility of rubber as a material is that it is something between a solid and a very viscous liquid; it is compressible, so it digs deeper into the crevices of the pavement under higher normal force; its characteristics vary with temperature.

All that makes establishing a fix number for any coefficient very difficult; note that the tables show a broad range.
Static friction is mainly produced by molecular and electronic interaction between two homogeneous materials; that is the reason for which the higher coefficients of friction belong to two parts made of the same material.

Since this discussion started, I have been trying to research published information on the subject, finding some, but all contradictory and with null experimentation backing it up.

Something about the patch may be true, since couches and riders have demonstrated that loading the more capable rear tire during turns is better.
According to Keith Code, the bigger patch of the rear tire is the backbone of this technique.

Two more techniques demonstrate that extreme lean angles are an undesirable evil of riding on two wheels: hanging-off and quick steering.

The main reasons that makes extreme lean angles bad are the impairment of the suspension and the asymmetrical loading of the section of the tire.

The increased dynamic weight of the turns overloads the suspension, which at the same time looses resolution due to the angle of lean (road irregularities act vertically, while the suspension operates in an angle).

That condition alone brings a new set of problems for the tires to overcome: the elasticity of the air inside the tire must compensate for that degree of elasticity lost by the suspension, which leads to more cyclic deformation (following the irregularities of the road approaching in rapid secession and imparting stronger vertical acceleration).

More dynamic energy absorbed by the tires lead to increased temperature and changes in the coefficient of friction (probably improving it); however, the increased vertical accelerations and each cycle of compression-extension means that the normal force and the size of the contact patch dramatically cycle as well.

It is good the part of the cycle when the normal force and the size of the contact patch increase, but the tire may skid during the opposite part of the cycle, when both get reduced.

The asymmetrical loading of the section of the tire introduces a transverse deformation, against which the manufacturer fights producing a carcass much more rigid than the one for a car.
Hence, there is compromise among rigidity, flexibility and softness there.

From my humble and conservative point of view, is is better to be a master pu$$y rolling than a hero sliding on the road and among moving cars.

For track riding, the limits are to be explored and kissed: no chicken strips !!

[Kevin2109]

Anyway, that bike is a 636 <3

And @Jiggles, this was so 7 years ago

[dfox]

nice post @Motofool.

some good points to consider, the dynamic affect of the suspension, the air in the tires, the suspension, etc. all play into the normal force during most motorcycle riding. the theoretical explanation I described was for steady state, no acceleration, no braking, staying on the exact same radius, etc. which is a situation that rarely occurs during motorcycle riding.

either way, learning to lean a bike can prove useful in emergency maneuvers, and accidentally blowing into a turn too fast, etc.

[choneofakind]

Originally Posted by dfox

for anyone else in disagreement, what happens when you have decreased tire pressure? does your handling ability go up, or down? low tire pressure means increased contact patch, which doesn't mean increased friction forces.

Go ride the track on properly inflated tires. They'll work fine

Now take out 2-3 psi. They'll stick better.

Take out too much air, they get greasy, leave too much in, they don't grip as well as they can.


Go ride a mountain bike trail on 55 psi tires. You'll be fine.

Go ride a mountain bike trail on 35 psi tires, you'll stick better on everything, even plain old hard-pack trail without any obstacles or shifting terrain. You can brake harder, turn faster, and climb harder than you did with higher tire pressures, and that's not even considering the rough patches, where the lower pressure tires act as a "pre-suspension" suspension.


I'm not trying to be stubborn, just trying to point out where we're getting our observations and opinions from. They are not unbacked opinions, they're based on experiences.

I agree with your math for a bike that is upright at a constant speed, but that's a very simple situation.

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by Motofool

That condition alone brings a new set of problems for the tires to overcome: the elasticity of the air inside the tire must compensate for that degree of elasticity lost by the suspension, which leads to more cyclic deformation (following the irregularities of the road approaching in rapid secession and imparting stronger vertical acceleration).

More dynamic energy absorbed by the tires lead to increased temperature and changes in the coefficient of friction (probably improving it); however, the increased vertical accelerations and each cycle of compression-extension means that the normal force and the size of the contact patch dramatically cycle as well.

ah yes, "cold tires". your post has me thinking... what other gases could be used outside of standard air (nitrogen/oxygen) and how would their viscosity effect the handling of the tire? how hard would it be to make a gas that is quicker to compress than it is to decompress? lol i wonder what air motogp tires run

[dfox]

Originally Posted by choneofakind

Go ride a mountain bike trail on 55 psi tires. You'll be fine.

dirt and gravel are not the same as a road.

I'm done arguing with you. Inconsistencies in the road can be handled better by a wider contact patch. good, great, I agree. you're not getting any additional magical friction force from that wider patch though, it's the same as a narrow patch would be on the same exact section of road.

[Fappy]

Originally Posted by dfox

in saying mass times "normal force", i will admit i was incorrect, but only in semantics, it is the normal acceleration. f is always equal to ma. i initially wrote f=coefficient time mass time gravity, however that's not always true, especially if you're on a banked turn, the acceleration actually has two parts, and will be higher then the acceleration due to gravity.

in nothing else stated do I agree with, and chances are, I'll never change your mind.

F(friction)=Mu(coefficient of friction) x m (mass of object) a (acceleration of object normal (perpendicular) to the force of friction). You show me in that formula, where area is. The mass of the object cannot change. The acceleration of the object is typically the force of gravity, however as I mentioned above it can be slightly larger if you're on a banked road. I see no area in that calculation.

As was pointed out, it is very true that F(force) = p (pressure) times a (area). The problem comes when you assume that the force changes due to area. When the area goes down, the pressure goes up. What are the units of pressure? pounds per square inch is one unit. If you have a given force, a reduction in contact area proportionally increases the pressure. If you as a person, lay on a scale, is your weight any different than if you're standing? no. does the pressure you exert on each square inch of the scale change? yes.


does contact patch help deal with inconsistencies in the road better? yes. does it increase the frictional force and allow you to turn harder? NO!

my credentials? a professional engineer who has taken a significant amount of static and dynamic physics classes at the undergrad and graduate level. now, you want to start talking about the coefficient of kinetic friction, THAT gets complicated, because now you're starting to talk about contact area making a difference, but at the microscopic level.

Hey guys, just wanted to jump in here... dfox is quite CORRECT about the physics of this situation. The static friction between the motorcycle's tires and the road will vary ONLY with: a) the coefficient of static friction between the tires and the road, and b) the normal force acting on the motorcycle.

The contact patch does nothing DIRECTLY for your friction (grip) between the road and the bike. In fact, the contact patch is simply a direct visual representation of the combination of tire material, tire pressure, bike mass, and temperature.

The reason that higher performance bikes and cars have wider tires is to spread this contact area of the tires over a larger area of pavement, to increase the probability that overall grip will be maintained.
For example: If you have tires that are exactly 3" wide, and you were to run over a patch of ice that was exactly 3" wide... you're a lot more likely to lose grip than if your tires were 5" wide, because those extra 2" are able to provide traction on non-iced ground. It's a similar concept.

Wider tires are also generally made of a softer tire compound (for a better coefficient of friction), and they consequently require a wider tire footprint to distribute the bike's weight without collapsing.

Also... wider tires look cooler.
Credentials!: I am also an engineer with lots of boring physics experience.

[Jiggles]

So if I inflated my tires enough that my contact patch was the size of a quarter I'd still get the same amount of grip? How about size of a BB? A needle point?

[choneofakind]

I'm not arguing, I was pointing out where I was basing my experiences; I'm sure I'm not the only one reading this who is thinking along those lines. Basing thoughts off of previous experiences is something all human beings do.

[Fappy]

Originally Posted by choneofakind

Go ride a mountain bike trail on 55 psi tires. You'll be fine.

On uneven dirt and rock trails, lower tire pressure helps a ton because the tire is able to deform and reach objects on the ground that it otherwise wouldn't be able to with a higher tire pressure. Example: if you run over a pointy rock with higher psi tires, you're only touching a small piece of a single rock, which is more likely to roll or move or give out. With lower psi, your tire is spreading its contact force (area) over more objects, and is more likely to provide a stable footing, and might even able to provide lateral stability on the sides of the rock, etc.

Again it's related to street bike tires' contact patch area and how it affects traction.

[Kevin2109]

Originally Posted by choneofakind

Go ride a mountain bike trail on 55 psi tires. You'll be fine.

Originally Posted by Fappy

On uneven dirt and rock trails, lower tire pressure helps a ton because the tire is able to deform and reach objects on the ground that it otherwise wouldn't be able to with a higher tire pressure. Example: if you run over a pointy rock with higher psi tires, you're only touching a small piece of a single rock, which is more likely to roll or move or give out. With lower psi, your tire is spreading its contact force (area) over more objects, and is more likely to provide a stabile footing, and might even able to provide lateral stability on the sides of the rock, etc.

Again it's related to street bike tires' contact patch area and how it affects traction.

[Fappy]

Originally Posted by Jiggles

So if I inflated my tires enough that my contact patch was the size of a quarter I'd still get the same amount of grip? How about size of a BB? A needle point?

Yeah, the amount of friction provided would be EXACTLY the same.
But when you talk about "grip" that is really referring to the probability that a tire will maintain traction over all kinds of varying surfaces and temperatures and changing friction coefficient sections encountered on the asphalt. That's where a wider contact area helps... It lets the tire reach more area of the road that's capable of still providing friction where other areas aren't.

[Fappy]

Originally Posted by Kevin2109

Lol, sorry. Mostly because 90% of sarcasm depends on tone of voice, inflection, and body language.

I go away to fap now?

[choneofakind]

Originally Posted by Fappy

Again it's related to street bike tires' contact patch area and how it affects traction.

Thank you for calmly explaining that to me instead of getting huffy and talking down to me. I appreciate that.

But I get that. I understand mechanics pretty well. I haven't gotten to more concentrated classes dealing with tires yet, but basic physics are well within my grasp.
Credentials: ME sophomore. I'll get to the harder classes and more practical applications soon.


Anyhow, I know that a lower pressure tire conforms better to whatever is under it, and is therefore more likely to find grip on an irregular surface. Imagine leaning over during a turn as one giant angled irregularity. Wouldn't a wider tire (forget tire compound atm, that's just an extra variable that I'm trying to ignore for my grasping a concept's sake) form to that angled surface better than the same tire that is narrower? It will still have the same coefficient of static friction, and will still be able to deliver the same amount of grip per unit area, but over a larger area than the same tire in a narrower width right? Which means that the wider tire could then deliver more centripetal force for a turn if the rider chooses to go faster, or open the throttle more. There is more "reserve" essentially correct?

I get that from a simple point of view, the bike only weighs a fixed amount: a wider tire will have a wider footprint, but the same normal force is delivered, so the friction will be the same, just spread out more. That's simple pressure vs area relationship.

But I'm more interested in turning, where there is a lot more turning force placed on the tire, and so far, we've proven that riders can demand more grip than any tire ever made can deliver, because MotoGP racers keep lowsiding/highsiding

[Fappy]

Originally Posted by choneofakind

Anyhow, I know that a lower pressure tire conforms better to whatever is under it, and is therefore more likely to find grip on an irregular surface. Imagine leaning over during a turn as one giant angled irregularity. Wouldn't a wider tire (forget tire compound atm, that's just an extra variable that I'm trying to ignore for my grasping a concept's sake) form to that angled surface better than the same tire that is narrower? It will still have the same coefficient of static friction, and will still be able to deliver the same amount of grip per unit area, but over a larger area than the same tire in a narrower width right? Which means that the wider tire could then deliver more centripetal force for a turn if the rider chooses to go faster, or open the throttle more. There is more "reserve" essentially correct?

Hah nice! Welcome to the club! Where are you at school? I am a class of '10 PSU alum.

Ok, if I'm getting this right... strip away all other variables. It's just a 100% uniform and FLAT road surface against a 100% uniform and FLAT tire surface?
Which by the way -- this means that there would be no microscopic pores, crevices, mountains, etc. which are present in normal rubber/road interaction. They all contribute to overall traction.

In this case, no matter the width of the contact area, the traction provided would be exactly the same for a narrow or for a wide tire, and traction would be truly independent of contact area. This is simply because "area" of contact does not factor into the formula for friction delivered.

Now, this says nothing about stability. It'd be easier, for example, to "tip over" a bike that has a narrow contact area, but that's different and it's because the moment applied about the bike's PIVOT POINT with the road would be much larger with a smaller contact area (see inverted pendulum example). But is that what you're getting at when you're talking about reserve?

(this is why bikes have to lean over into a turn to counteract the effect of centripetal acceleration, which tends to try to tip them over to the outside of a turn... inverted pendulum)

Originally Posted by choneofakind

I get that from a simple point of view, the bike only weighs a fixed amount: a wider tire will have a wider footprint, but the same normal force is delivered, so the friction will be the same, just spread out more. That's simple pressure vs area relationship.

But I'm more interested in turning, where there is a lot more turning force placed on the tire, and so far, we've proven that riders can demand more grip than any tire ever made can deliver, because MotoGP racers keep lowsiding/highsiding

Hah, I guess we need to move to bikes that have a straight up rubber SPHERE as the back tire lol. Unlimited lean angle!

[Fappy]

also: lol spherical tire!

[bdavison]

Originally Posted by dirty nasty

This is all well and fun, but for a street bike I'd rather see chicken strips. There really isn't many times that you'll have the bike leaned over that far when riding under normal conditions on the street. It's a nice feeling knowing there isn't complete psychos out there using the road as a track.

Unfortunately I find myself to be one of those psychos sometimes.

On the track I don't see how you couldn't get rid of those strips.

You do know that you can get to the sidewalls without speeding like a psycho....just an FYI. Just because a street rider doesnt have chicken strips doesn't mean he rides like an ass.

[dfox]

Originally Posted by Fappy

Hah nice! Welcome to the club! Where are you at school? I am a class of '10 PSU alum.

Mechanical?

I graduated 08 from Architectural Engineering, PSU.

[Fappy]

Originally Posted by dfox

Mechanical?

I graduated 08 from Architectural Engineering, PSU.

Penn State! Represent! I was actually originally in Architectural Engineering, but switched to Biomedical my sophomore year. Same core curriculum though. Same E Mech classes in Osmond building...

[Fappy]

Originally Posted by bdavison

You do know that you can get to the sidewalls without speeding like a psycho....just an FYI. Just because a street rider doesnt have chicken strips doesn't mean he rides like an ass.

That reminds me... can't you just get rid of the chicken strips by doing a little burnout and leaning the bike over to both sides? xD

[Jiggles]

Originally Posted by Fappy

That reminds me... can't you just get rid of the chicken strips by doing a little burnout and leaning the bike over to both sides? xD

That sounds more difficult than just riding

[choneofakind]

Originally Posted by Fappy

Hah nice! Welcome to the club! Where are you at school? I am a class of '10 PSU alum.

Ohio Northern. Not a terrible little school

Originally Posted by Fappy

Ok, if I'm getting this right... strip away all other variables. It's just a 100% uniform and FLAT road surface against a 100% uniform and FLAT tire surface?

Right. Idealized, imaginary, non-porous gym floor. For driving on

Originally Posted by Fappy

But is that what you're getting at when you're talking about reserve?

When you put a brick on a board and then raise one end of the board, eventually, the brick will start to slide. By increasing the angle of the board, the force pushing the brick down the hill (related to gravity by the sine of the angle) has become more than the friction force between the brick and the board. Meaning, there is a finite limit to how much friction two objects can have based on their coefficient of static friction. We can raise this by adding more mass to the brick, or by getting a surface with a higher coefficient than the wood right?

So now back to tires. When you open the throttle during a turn, the torque applied to your wheel times the radius of the wheel is a force that propels the bike forward. But at a certain lean angle (or a big enough throttle opening), μmgcosθ (magnitude of friction due to normal force, unless I got the wrong trig function) will be less than the applied force on the back wheel, due to turning, and the wheel will spin or slide, even if the back of the bike squats and loads the back wheel.

So if we apply that same force from turning (same squatting rear, same throttle input, same lean angle) over a larger area on the same compound (but wider) tire, the pressure between the contact area and the idealized gym floor road would be less. Each unit area, dA, would have less force acting on it because the total friction force is split up over a larger area, so each individual dA would not be asked to deliver a force larger than μmgcosθ and the tire will not break loose. That's my logic.

I guess maybe I'm thinking grip (the probability that the tire will maintain traction - I liked your definition) and I'm using the word "friction"? I dunno, I just feel like they wouldn't use wider tires if they didn't have to; they impede how quickly the bike can lean over. But they also make identical tires in a 160 and a 180, so it's not just that a better compound is available in a wider tire.

My head is confused. It's nice outside. I don't have a ton of hw, and I already went to physics class today.

[csmith12]

μmgcosθ !!!!

[dfox]

Originally Posted by choneofakind

So if we apply that same force from turning (same squatting rear, same throttle input, same lean angle) over a larger area on the same compound (but wider) tire, the pressure between the contact area and the idealized gym floor road would be less. Each unit area, dA, would have less force acting on it because the total friction force is split up over a larger area, so each individual dA would not be asked to deliver a force larger than μmgcosθ and the tire will not break loose. That's my logic.

I guess maybe I'm thinking grip (the probability that the tire will maintain traction - I liked your definition) and I'm using the word "friction"?

The problem is, each one of those units of area now sees a reduced normal force because they're sharing it with more units, and has less available friction force. The reduction in frictional force on each area is directly proportional to the increase in area. force = pressure times area.

Grip however, is more likely what most are talking about. You have a greater chance of maintaining contact with the road surface with a wider patch then you do a smaller patch, due to surface irregularities in the road and tire.

[alex.s]

i'm trying to find out what dfox is arguing, outside of the symantics of how people phrase an idea.

nobody is disagreeing, but everybody is saying the other person is wrong.

dfox, yes we get it. technically speaking the contact patch isnt what is changing the "grip level" of a loaded tire. nobody is disagreeing with that. what people are trying to communicate is that there is a variance in level of PERCEIVED level of grip. i honestly couldn't give a **** how you want to describe it mathematically. go experience it and you will see. a loaded tire has more grip than an unloaded tire. a loaded tire has a larger contact patch than an unloaded tire. you said it yourself. stop arguing over chicken and egg.

[dfox]

It's not semantics.

If you would like to accept that your perception is correct but for the wrong reasons, then go for it. I'm simply trying to help you understand the physics and help you become a better, more educated rider.

[alex.s]

tell me how knowing how to accurately describe the forces involved in tire dynamics is going to effect the inputs you enter into your motorcycle?

i can tell you exactly how to crash. can you tell me exactly mathematically how not to crash? didn't think so.

[Lychee]

[choneofakind]

Originally Posted by csmith12

μmgcosθ !!!!

haha nice picture!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction

[dfox]

Originally Posted by alex.s

tell me how knowing how to accurately describe the forces involved in tire dynamics is going to effect the inputs you enter into your motorcycle?

i can tell you exactly how to crash. can you tell me exactly mathematically how not to crash? didn't think so.

It helps me. I understand you don't care, so why do you keep arguing?

[Jiggles]

Alright now lets talk about AFR's compression ratios jets intakes exhausts and combustion engines. GO!

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by dfox

It helps me. I understand you don't care, so why do you keep arguing?

really? i don't think it does. maybe you can give an example of a technique or skill you have altered learned or abandoned based on the information you are talking about?

[Jiggles]

i defrate my tires a bit

[dfox]

Originally Posted by alex.s

really? i don't think it does. maybe you can give an example of a technique or skill you have altered learned or abandoned based on the information you are talking about?

It's the way my mind works, the way I view the world. I see things in concepts, not in definitions. My spatial reasoning is how I interact with the world. I see things in my head in four dimensions. I can visualize how the center of gravity shifts and how that changes the distribution of weight between the front and rear tires. I can visualize why counter steering works, instead of just having someone tell me it does and learning strictly from experience. I understand this is not the way the normal person views the world, and don't think that my way is better or worse, I just have a different skill set, which is why I am an engineer.