Jeff that's funny. Modified Porsches can pull more than 1.5G and they're modified for precisely that reason - they would would tip if they weren't modified. Even a stock porsche 911 will pull well over 1G on a race circuit, since there's more grip on a racing track than out on the street.
ps...
You said said the bike has around 1/5 or 1/6 the contact patch area of a car tyre.
And I said the car has around 5 or 6 times the weight of the bike all balancing on 2 wheels just like a bike. Therefore the 'loading per unit area' is the same...
Mentioning that adding stickier tyres gives...
It says the lateral force, also known as friction, is prop to load^0.8
well, Friction = Coef x Load
.'. Coef of friction is prop to Friction/Load.
ie [load^0.8]/[load]
ie Coef is prop to load ^ -0.2
OK ?
that wiki article you quote says that coef is proportional to load ^-0.2
therefore it agrees with me entirely. I don't understand your 'argument' here, you are in agreement with my previous statements.
Of course its only an approximation, and factors like tyre geometry and stickiness of the...
I don't think that's true kev. You could video tape (or digitally record) the action going on inside a close to c spaceship then examine it later when the ship is back on earth. Or transmit the digital data as a short burst of information (to avoid doppler complication). The ticking of time...
grief that's obvious. But roughly speaking almost all the grip is coming from the 2 outside tyres at and above 1G.
There is precisely 100% load transfer (not weight transfer btw) just when the car tips onto its side.
Weight transfer is due to body roll which we are not considering in this...
I think you'll find its:
coef of friction is proportional to load ^ -0.2.
So a bike at 1/5 the weight of a porsche 911 has 1.4 times the amount of grip if using identical tyres (identical size, and same compound)
Jeff, you seem to forget that a car can't use all 4 tyres in a curve. That would be against the laws of physics as I'm sure you're aware. In corners at 1G and above the car's only really using the 2 wheels on the outside. So it's just a very heavy motorbike really. A porsche 911 for example...
It was posted by Mentz on here recently, I wanted to ask what he meant but doubted that I'd be able to attract his attention. So I put it up here for debate - hoping that you guys could shed some light on it for us. It seems an intersesting statement but I can't make head or tail of it myself...
I read this somewhere on a physics forum recently
What is meant by this statement? I spent a short while thinking about it but can't follow what the person is going on about. Maybe I misunderstood him, but he seems to be claiming that time dilation is actually an illusion.
Observer B feels himself pressed against the back of his pilot's seat when his ship accelerates.
Observer A doesn't feel himself pressed against the back of his pilot's seat. Because his ship doesn't move at all.
In other words A and B are not interchangeable. Simple as that really.
B...
- including the constancy of any observer's value of c
But the difference between the 2 versions IMHO is just an argument of semantics. Neither is superior or more logical than the other. Until somebody can give a logical reason for the constancy of c. Or show that an ether does exist.
Are...