Whilst getting used to the new bike I've noticed that I'm riding the front wheel much more than before. This seems to be because the riding position is further forward than previous bikes. On old R1's and the Caponord I would put more weight over the rear wheel at most times but now I'm 'front heavy' into bends. Even my old GSXR750 seemed fairly neutral. What's the FOAK's view on weight over wheels? -- Ash UKRMFBC#8 BOTAFOT#82 BOTAFOF#41 HMC#5 FTB#0 YZF-R1 2006 "Roger" http://www.theredline.co.uk "If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough." -- Mario Andretti
CSS teach you to load up the rear round bends and *not* load the front to avoid front-end wash-outs. It all depends on whether what you think is loading up the front end matches what someone else might think. It also depends on your interpretation of going 'into bends'. It's bound to load up the front braking before you go in, but you should, by conventional roadrace teaching standards, be starting to load the rear and gradually increasing drive once you are in the bend. As they say over and over again (and I think they nicked it from Kenny Roberts senior) "I've never seen someone lose the front on the throttle, but seen it plenty of times when they're on the brakes" or words to that effect. What's the bike? And are you sitting right up against the tank? I found that my bike control changed massively just by making sure I kept a space between me bits and the tank that you could fit a packet of fags in (top to bottom). Dave
Some dodgy physics there. Think of the kinetic energy. You need more throttle because rolling a deformable rubber tyre on its side is not the most efficient way of turning your forward momentum sideways.
Force perpendicular to velocity does not equal power. How does a satellite orbit at a constant(ish) speed without a big engine?
But no work required, or the system would slow down. It's not rocket science! Perhaps you would like to consider what happens to a spinning wheel in a vacuum with frictionless bearings, and move on to the closest analogy that springs to mind, a ball spinning in a roulette wheel. It is friction alone that slows the ball. Try putting some numbers into your theory and see that it doesn't match observed reality.
Verdigris wrote No it don't. At least not under the effects of gravity it don't. It is cosmic wind and extremely thin atmosphere what causes the slowing down, innit? If you had the mind and a fair bit in resources to put your so called "system" into an isolation universe and observe it it's gross scientific term for speed would stay the same, conservation of energy innit? Negligible in the puny time spans you mere mortals think in maybe but some of us can see the broader picture.
In uk.rec.motorcycles, steve auvache belched forth and ejected the following: At first I thought he meant duffer. Then I thought he could've meant someone that smokes a lot. Then curiosity got the better of me and I went to see if the word existed on urban dictionary.com It does. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=guffer <VBG>
