• Welcome to PiBoSo Official Forum. Please login or sign up.
 

The Ugliest MotoGP Bike In The History of The World

Started by Urban Chaos 2.0, March 11, 2017, 07:08:14 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

HornetMaX

Hmm, not sure acceleration has anything to do with the benefits. Accelerating any object, no matter the shape (and even in vacuum) will require more force than keeping the object at constant speed. Sir Newton said so, quite a while ago. Your "hand in pool" example doesn't make sense for our discussion (there are other reasons why an object in a fluid encounters more resistance at higher speed).

@Hawk: in cars you need big wings because you want to generate a downforce to improve tyre grip (thanks to more load).
For bikes, you only need a "little" down force applied on the nose of the bike to prevent it from wheeling: totally different goal (even if it's still a downforce).

Other point: bike vertical, the bike's wings will generate a down force (good as anti-wheeling).
But bike leaning right (for a right turn), the wings will generate a force that is (mostly) pushing the bike outside the turn ... first sight, these kind of wings may even have a negative effect in turns. But then, turn speeds are lower than straight speeds, so one can probably "tune" the wings to have some decent positive anti-wheeling effect on high-speed straights with little-to-no negative effect in turns.

Hawk

I can definitely side with the theory that these wings help keep the front end down(a sort of more efficient anti-wheelie device) in a straight line other than of any benefit to downforce for extra tyre grip for cornering, so I'm more inclined to agree with what Max is saying here, but still not convinced that other means to do the same trick wouldn't be a better option. After all, has it taken decades of the best engineering minds in MotoGP to finally realise that winglets are the most efficient way to keep the front end down? Again, I'm still not totally convinced this is the only reason they are doing this and that there is another agenda in progress here?  :)

Hawk.

davidboda46

Ducati has said they will probably not use the fairing at all of the tracks. It has negative and positive effects. I guess we will see it on high speed track like Austria. I believe, like mentioned above, that it has negative impact on cornering (maybe not in all types of corners).

Cheers,

/David "Gonzo" Boda #46   
"THE EDGE... THERE IS NO HONEST WAY TO EXPLAIN IT BECAUSE THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO REALLY KNOW WHERE IT IS ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE GONE OVER"

HornetMaX

There aren't many ways to prevent a wheelie: you can cut the power (manually or electronically), but that ... well, cuts the power :)

Or you make the bike less prone to wheeling with a large big wheelbase (but that will make the bike less agile in turns) and/or low and forward CoG (but you can't move it at will).

So if you can get some decent help from small wings, then that's a deal (assuming rules allow it).

I totally agree with you that often there's some marketing involved, I just don't think it's the case this time. Anyway, Ducati already oozes with marketing, not like they need much more :)

Urban Chaos 2.0

Quote from: HornetMaX on March 12, 2017, 07:40:16 PM
Accelerating any object, no matter the shape (and even in vacuum) will require more force than keeping the object at constant speed.

Irrelevant.

Quote from: HornetMaX on March 12, 2017, 07:40:16 PM
Hmm, not sure acceleration has anything to do with the benefits.

Have you heard of a little something called inertia? Specifically, there is a relativistic component of the accelerating body's mass in the force exerted by the medium (air in this case). 

Quote from: HornetMaX on March 12, 2017, 07:40:16 PM
Your "hand in pool" example doesn't make sense for our discussion (there are other reasons why an object in a fluid encounters more resistance at higher speed).

Again: Inertia. We're talking about acceleration, not speed. The effect of speed is obvious. The additional effect of acceleration is my point. Air and water are both fluids. One is just a lot less dense than the other. "The hand in pool" example is applicable here.

HornetMaX

No really Urban, are you sure you know a little of what you're talking about ?
My sentence you've labelled "irrelevant" is basically the definition of inertia ...  ::)

And relativistic component ?  :o Seriously ?! Are you sure you know what relativistic means ?

The hand in pool example is totally irrelevant: if you don't trust me (and you don't) go ask your high school physics teacher, he'll tell you.

[And I'm sorry, I won't answer you any more on this topic]

Urban Chaos 2.0

-The first point is irrelevant in your defence because it supports my argument. Why is more force required to accelerate an object? Inertia. And in a vacuum the force required will be less than in an environment filled with air travelling at x m/s.

-Yes, there is a relativistic mass component of the interaction specified. If you don't understand that, I can explain it to you.

-The hand in pool argument is relevant, for reasons I have detailed.


HornetMaX

Quote from: Urban Chaos 2.0 on March 12, 2017, 08:39:23 PM
-The first point is irrelevant in your defence because it supports my argument. Why is more force required to accelerate an object? Inertia. And in a vacuum the force required will be less than in an environment filled with air travelling at x m/s.
Force needed to accelerate a body has zero relationship with aerodynamic forces.
You're mixing up the fact that in a fluid (often) the faster you go the more force you need to sustain that CONSTANT speed.
That has nothing to do with acceleration (as the speed being constant, there's none).

Quote from: Urban Chaos 2.0 on March 12, 2017, 08:39:23 PM
-Yes, there is a relativistic mass component of the interaction specified. If you don't understand that, I can explain it to you.
Can't resist, please do, explain it to me. I'm all ears.

Urban Chaos 2.0

Quote from: HornetMaX on March 12, 2017, 08:50:44 PM
Force needed to accelerate a body has zero relationship with aerodynamic forces.

You're wrong. Here, look at the word "resistance".

Quote from: HornetMaX on March 12, 2017, 08:50:44 PM
You're mixing up the fact that in a fluid (often) the faster you go the more force you need to sustain that CONSTANT speed.

I'm not mixing anything up. You are. The fact that more force is required to maintain speed in a fluid IS EXACTLY MY POINT. What happens when you stop applying the throttle at 300km/h? The bike slows down quickly. Why? aerodynamic RESISTANCE. Contact with the road does not negate that fact. In a vacuum, fluid resistance is not present. MUCH More force is required to accelerate from 200 to 300 in an environment where there is air, than in one where there is no air.

Quote from: HornetMaX on March 12, 2017, 08:50:44 PM
Can't resist, please do, explain it to me. I'm all ears.

A object travelling through air at x speed, is the same as the stationary object having air flowing past it at the same speed. This is relativism, and it's the reason wind tunnels are used for development. As far as mass and inertia are concerned, the force required to push through the air is equivalent to the force excreted by the air on the body. When that force is directed downward at an angle (the purpose winglets serve), there additional weight added to the motorcycle's front end. This counteracts the tendency for the front end to lift up. 





HornetMaX

Quote from: Urban Chaos 2.0 on March 12, 2017, 09:06:57 PM
I'm not mixing anything up. You are. The fact that more force is required to maintain speed in a fluid IS EXACTLY MY POINT.
It can't be your point as this true fact (more force is required to maintain speed in a fluid) is totally unrelated to inertia (and you said inertia was your point no more than 3 posts ago).

Quote from: Urban Chaos 2.0 on March 12, 2017, 09:06:57 PM
Quote from: HornetMaX on March 12, 2017, 08:50:44 PM
Quote from: Urban Chaos 2.0 on March 12, 2017, 08:39:23 PM
-Yes, there is a relativistic mass component of the interaction specified. If you don't understand that, I can explain it to you.
Can't resist, please do, explain it to me. I'm all ears.
A object travelling through air at x speed, is the same as the stationary object having air flowing past it at the same speed. This is relativism, and it's the reason wind tunnels are used for development.

Relativistic (the term you originally used) means something totally different, go check out.

The only thing you've explained is that you don't know what relativistic means (no biggie about that) and that you've confused (chaotic ?) ideas about inertia and aerodynamics. Good night.

JamoZ


matty0l215

For faster responses, please visit the discord server- HERE

JamoZ

Quote from: matty0l215 on March 12, 2017, 09:51:47 PM
Quote from: JamoZ on March 12, 2017, 09:49:54 PM


How many pictures do you have of that bloody fox!

Not enough!

This was actually in a popcorn gif gallery, i just had to pick this one over the michael jackson one :P

Urban Chaos 2.0

I was actually in bed when a friend awoke me with a phone call. In the process I wound up reading your nonsense.

Quote from: HornetMaX on March 12, 2017, 09:44:28 PM
It can't be your point as this true fact (more force is required to maintain speed in a fluid) is totally unrelated to inertia (and you said inertia was your point no more than 3 posts ago).

Inertia is a body's resistance to motion. A FLUID'S RESISTANCE TO MOTION FROM A PARTICLE PERSPECTIVE IS THE REASON IT REQUIRES GREATER FORCE FOR AN OBJECT TO MOVE THROUGH IT Jesus. The fact that I have to explain that to you demonstrates you're a lost cause. Max it seems you do not possess an ability to reason. You do not address the arguments, because you cannot address them, So you instead say that you're right, with nothing to show for it. I am wasting time on someone who refuses to think.

Quote from: HornetMaX on March 12, 2017, 09:44:28 PM
Relativistic (the term you originally used) means something totally different, go check out.

The only thing you've explained is that you don't know what relativistic means (no biggie about that) and that you've confused (chaotic ?) ideas about inertia and aerodynamics. Good night.

Again, you post nothing but nonsense which does not address any arguments because you know you're wrong. Hahaha, you're a fucking joke. Good night indeed. I'm off to bed.

Napalm Nick

Wow.

I hope Star Trek make this into a movie.  I can imagine this is what happens when Vulcans and Gangsters collide. :o

"The post you are writing has been written at least ten times already in the last 15ish years. Its already been reported, suggested, discussed, ignored or archived (but mostly ignored). Why are you doing it again?"