|
Back to the Dakota..
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... Ducati produces beautifully made motorcycles that are super fast, handle well, and are reliable. I've had Honda and Kawasaki motorcycles and have found their reliability no different than "The Duc." --------------------------------- I think the reliability of all modern vehicles .... cars, trucks, motorcycles and even boats .... are vastly improved over the ones produced 20 or 30 years ago. Only problem is, they have become so complex that they can't usually be worked on by us "shade tree mechanics" of yesterday. I just bought a 2002 Saturn for a local "kick around" car. It's about as basic as you can get but the price was right and it's in amazingly good condition. Looks new ... even the interior is spotless. But, the AC didn't work. Popping the hood I noticed that the clutch on the AC compressor wasn't pulling in. I had a old Pontiac LeMans (probably a '65 or thereabouts) years ago in Puerto Rico that had the same problem. Something was messed up in the controls that engaged the clutch. I simply hotwired a fused and switched wire from the battery to the clutch connector and it worked fine, except I had to remember to cycle it on and off. Not so on the Saturn. Now they have a pressure transducer that senses both the high and low pressure sides of the AC system. If either are out of spec, it doesn't allow the clutch to pull in. Ok. So, I figured maybe it needed a charge and headed off to Auto Zone and bought one of those DIY charging kits. Sure enough, the low pressure side was low when measured with the included gauge. I carefully and faithfully followed the directions on how to charge it. But it didn't make sense because the clutch wouldn't engage. Tried it several times getting the low side up to the specified pressure reading without success. So, out comes the multimeter and I started checking all the voltage points. Everything is fine, except no power to the clutch. I was about to give up and do the "hot wire" thing to see if the clutch worked at all but decided to Google the wiring schematics for the Saturn's AC system. Turns out there's a diode in the fuse box that is supposed to protect the AC fuse from spikes in the line when the clutch disengages. Checked it in forward and reversed biased positions and it was shorted. Back to AutoZone and got a new diode, thinking I had found the problem. Still didn't work, so I decided to give the recharge one more try. This time I ignored the warnings about overcharging and brought the pressure up above above the specified level. That did it. The clutch suddenly engaged and the tank of R134A started getting cold, meaning the AC system was drawing the refrigerant out of the tank and the low side pressure dropped to within the specified range. Within 5 minutes the car vents were blowing nice, ice cold air and I felt pretty proud of myself. Rechecked the new diode and it's fine, so hopefully it will keep working. |
Back to the Dakota..
"Eisboch" wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... Ducati produces beautifully made motorcycles that are super fast, handle well, and are reliable. I've had Honda and Kawasaki motorcycles and have found their reliability no different than "The Duc." --------------------------------- I think the reliability of all modern vehicles .... cars, trucks, motorcycles and even boats .... are vastly improved over the ones produced 20 or 30 years ago. Only problem is, they have become so complex that they can't usually be worked on by us "shade tree mechanics" of yesterday. I just bought a 2002 Saturn for a local "kick around" car. It's about as basic as you can get but the price was right and it's in amazingly good condition. Looks new ... even the interior is spotless. But, the AC didn't work. Popping the hood I noticed that the clutch on the AC compressor wasn't pulling in. I had a old Pontiac LeMans (probably a '65 or thereabouts) years ago in Puerto Rico that had the same problem. Something was messed up in the controls that engaged the clutch. I simply hotwired a fused and switched wire from the battery to the clutch connector and it worked fine, except I had to remember to cycle it on and off. Not so on the Saturn. Now they have a pressure transducer that senses both the high and low pressure sides of the AC system. If either are out of spec, it doesn't allow the clutch to pull in. Ok. So, I figured maybe it needed a charge and headed off to Auto Zone and bought one of those DIY charging kits. Sure enough, the low pressure side was low when measured with the included gauge. I carefully and faithfully followed the directions on how to charge it. But it didn't make sense because the clutch wouldn't engage. Tried it several times getting the low side up to the specified pressure reading without success. So, out comes the multimeter and I started checking all the voltage points. Everything is fine, except no power to the clutch. I was about to give up and do the "hot wire" thing to see if the clutch worked at all but decided to Google the wiring schematics for the Saturn's AC system. Turns out there's a diode in the fuse box that is supposed to protect the AC fuse from spikes in the line when the clutch disengages. Checked it in forward and reversed biased positions and it was shorted. Back to AutoZone and got a new diode, thinking I had found the problem. Still didn't work, so I decided to give the recharge one more try. This time I ignored the warnings about overcharging and brought the pressure up above above the specified level. That did it. The clutch suddenly engaged and the tank of R134A started getting cold, meaning the AC system was drawing the refrigerant out of the tank and the low side pressure dropped to within the specified range. Within 5 minutes the car vents were blowing nice, ice cold air and I felt pretty proud of myself. Rechecked the new diode and it's fine, so hopefully it will keep working. You are waywayway beyond my car mechanic abilities... 😄 |
Back to the Dakota..
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... You are waywayway beyond my car mechanic abilities... 😄 -------------------------------------- Trust me, I am *NO* mechanic. I usually get frustrated and end up breaking something. But it was kinda fun. Mrs.E. even got a big kick out of watching my efforts and actually became a little emotional. Back in our younger days raising kids, etc., we could never afford a new car so I was always spending half the weekends fixing up (as best I could) whatever car or cars we had just so I could get to work again the following week. But as the years went by and financial situations changed, the old cars became a thing of the past, replaced with easy to buy new ones. I've certainly had my share and then some of nice, new fancy cars. But I've lost interest in them now. I actually got a big kick out of searching for an older car that I could "fix up" and use for local driving instead of using the truck all the time and I got a weird sense of accomplishment in fixing the AC system and installing new front rotors and brake pads on it. Something I haven't felt for many years. |
Back to the Dakota..
wrote in message ... On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 21:05:56 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Trust me, I am *NO* mechanic. I usually get frustrated and end up breaking something. You still don't know where the gas went. You will be back. ----------------------------------------- That's true. Might have a major leak and the charge will be gone again soon. But maybe not. It was not completely discharged. It was just low .... about 20 psi on the low side. Should be about 36 to 40 psi. From Googling about this, apparently if an AC compressor isn't run for a long time the seals will harden and leak. The car I bought had been sitting for almost a year without being started or used. The recharge "kit" refrigerant contains a lubricant and a "seal conditioner" that is advertised to stop the leaks caused from non-use, assuming the seal is not destroyed. They also sell replacement seals and a UV dye and light kit that you can hunt the leak down with. I talked to a couple of people, including my son who have recharged their systems using the DIY kit. Been a couple of years now and their systems are still working fine. I'll just cross my fingers. If the compressor itself is bad (which I doubt, because it's working fine now), a rebuilt one is $194. The recharge kit with gauge is only $34. Even if I have to do it once a year, it's worth it. |
Back to the Dakota..
|
Back to the Dakota..
|
Back to the Dakota..
|
Back to the Dakota..
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:48:28 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 6/10/13 7:37 PM, Eisboch wrote: "Earl" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... With someone more skilled than I am driving it, my motorcycle will blow the doors off that Ford truck in 0-60 and in the quarter mile and again, with the right driver, leave that 911 Turbo you had behind, too. If I recall the test data, the Duc will do 0=60 in 3.1 or 3.2 seconds, and the quarter mile in 11.1 seconds. A couple of the Ducs will beat 3 seconds in 0-60 and do the quarter mile in under 10 seconds. But...not me with driving. --------------------------------------- Or me. I like bikes too ... or did. But at some point you have to face the music and realize that reflexes aren't what they used to be and motorcycles can be .... well ... flat out dangerous, even for experienced riders. That, plus the fact that I got spoiled having the Harley in Florida. I know I'll get all kinds of incoming flack for this but cruising around in the early evening on some of the inland roads near Jupiter in a tee shirt and no helmet was the balls. Never went fast. Just nice, cruising on isolated back roads away from all the noise and traffic. Compared to riding up here in MA where you still have to have leathers on in the evenings, even in the summer, helmet, gloves, chaps, .... the heck with it. Just wasn't the same. Last Harley was a 2007 Ultra Classic. Beast weighed almost 900 lbs. Then, I traded a 1965 Volkswagon Bus that I picked up for a completely restored 1974 Norton 850 Commando. Pretty stupid move. The Norton was a young man's bike, not something for an old fart like me. Reliving my youth, or tried to. Rode it twice and sold it. Harry's imaginary Ducati is far more unreliable than either of your M5's. I know several people who have owned one, and only one, and now have another brand. ------------------------------------------ That's hard to believe. The two M5's I had were nightmares. They were 2006 models and I think BMW was still getting all the bugs out of the software that controlled virtually every aspect of the car. The first one was constantly locking up the transmission so you couldn't shift it. Software revisions and upgrades didn't fix it. They finally gave me a newer one, manufactured later in the year that supposedly had all the "bugs" worked out. Nope. Started doing the same thing. Red cog of death appeared on the dash display. I had enough. They are awesome cars and maybe all the bugs are worked out by now, but it turned me off to BMW performance vehicles. It wouldn't matter what brand I had, "Earl the Flaming Ass" would knock it. That's why I don't post photos here any more of boats, motorcycles or cars, and one of the reasons why Earl is a permanent resident of my Bozo Bin. Ducati produces beautifully made motorcycles that are super fast, handle well, and are reliable. I've had Honda and Kawasaki motorcycles and have found their reliability no different than "The Duc." None of which compares with my Moto Guzzi - 63,407 miles and hasn't been in a shop for at least the past 22 years. (Knock on wood!) John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Back to the Dakota..
"John H" wrote in message ... None of which compares with my Moto Guzzi - 63,407 miles and hasn't been in a shop for at least the past 22 years. (Knock on wood!) John H. ------------------------------------------- Not knocking a Guzzi ... many people like them and they have a cult following. Mrs.E's uncle has an old Harley Road King that has well over 300,000 miles on it. He rebuilt the engine once during it's life. |
Back to the Dakota..
On 6/11/13 8:31 AM, Eisboch wrote:
"John H" wrote in message ... None of which compares with my Moto Guzzi - 63,407 miles and hasn't been in a shop for at least the past 22 years. (Knock on wood!) John H. ------------------------------------------- Not knocking a Guzzi ... many people like them and they have a cult following. Mrs.E's uncle has an old Harley Road King that has well over 300,000 miles on it. He rebuilt the engine once during it's life. I drove a FIAT for a day once, sometime in the 1970s. A nice-looking 124 roadster. Crapped out on me twice the same day for different reasons. Not as bad as an MGA I owned. It caught fire one stormy night on the way back from Ft. Leonard Wood to Kansas City. I took off the plate and hitchhiked back home. MGA is probably a planter by the side of the road. |
Back to the Dakota..
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 20:38:04 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... Ducati produces beautifully made motorcycles that are super fast, handle well, and are reliable. I've had Honda and Kawasaki motorcycles and have found their reliability no different than "The Duc." --------------------------------- I think the reliability of all modern vehicles .... cars, trucks, motorcycles and even boats .... are vastly improved over the ones produced 20 or 30 years ago. Only problem is, they have become so complex that they can't usually be worked on by us "shade tree mechanics" of yesterday. I just bought a 2002 Saturn for a local "kick around" car. It's about as basic as you can get but the price was right and it's in amazingly good condition. Looks new ... even the interior is spotless. But, the AC didn't work. Popping the hood I noticed that the clutch on the AC compressor wasn't pulling in. I had a old Pontiac LeMans (probably a '65 or thereabouts) years ago in Puerto Rico that had the same problem. Something was messed up in the controls that engaged the clutch. I simply hotwired a fused and switched wire from the battery to the clutch connector and it worked fine, except I had to remember to cycle it on and off. Not so on the Saturn. Now they have a pressure transducer that senses both the high and low pressure sides of the AC system. If either are out of spec, it doesn't allow the clutch to pull in. Ok. So, I figured maybe it needed a charge and headed off to Auto Zone and bought one of those DIY charging kits. Sure enough, the low pressure side was low when measured with the included gauge. I carefully and faithfully followed the directions on how to charge it. But it didn't make sense because the clutch wouldn't engage. Tried it several times getting the low side up to the specified pressure reading without success. So, out comes the multimeter and I started checking all the voltage points. Everything is fine, except no power to the clutch. I was about to give up and do the "hot wire" thing to see if the clutch worked at all but decided to Google the wiring schematics for the Saturn's AC system. Turns out there's a diode in the fuse box that is supposed to protect the AC fuse from spikes in the line when the clutch disengages. Checked it in forward and reversed biased positions and it was shorted. Back to AutoZone and got a new diode, thinking I had found the problem. Still didn't work, so I decided to give the recharge one more try. This time I ignored the warnings about overcharging and brought the pressure up above above the specified level. That did it. The clutch suddenly engaged and the tank of R134A started getting cold, meaning the AC system was drawing the refrigerant out of the tank and the low side pressure dropped to within the specified range. Within 5 minutes the car vents were blowing nice, ice cold air and I felt pretty proud of myself. Rechecked the new diode and it's fine, so hopefully it will keep working. We just bought a VW Sportwagon. I was surprised, and happy, that much of the gimmickry wasn't loaded into the car. Even the seats are operated with a handle for raising and a handle for moving forward and backward. It doesn't have 'seat memory', garage door openers, remote starting, and probably a dozen other niceties. I love it. So much less to break - and 40mpg! John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Back to the Dakota..
In article ,
says... On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:40:10 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 6/10/2013 2:15 PM, wrote: On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:54:51 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote: This is my idea of an F-150 and Porsche drivers feared me. At least they would not cut me off ;-) http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Brownie.jpg Those old pickups sure look puny compared to new models. We saw an early Tundra (T 100 ??)yesterday and it doesn't look as capable as a new Tacoma. The operative word here is "look". That was a tough old truck. A pallet of pavers, a pallet of sod, no matter, off it went. I remember my dad's Ford had a straight 6. Wouldn't gain any speed going up hill with a load, wouldn't lose any either... That one had the 300CI 6 and it was plenty strong, even pulling my boat. It had the classic Florida Ford problem tho. They came standard with a 2 core radiator and in hot weather, towing, they ran hot. I put in a 3 core and the problem was fixed. I had to do the same thing with my E150 van. I loved the old straight sixes, lots of low end torque. |
Back to the Dakota..
In article ,
says... On Monday, June 10, 2013 4:44:30 PM UTC-4, wrote: On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:40:10 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 6/10/2013 2:15 PM, wrote: On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:54:51 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote: This is my idea of an F-150 and Porsche drivers feared me. At least they would not cut me off ;-) http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Brownie.jpg Those old pickups sure look puny compared to new models. We saw an early Tundra (T 100 ??)yesterday and it doesn't look as capable as a new Tacoma. The operative word here is "look". That was a tough old truck. A pallet of pavers, a pallet of sod, no matter, off it went. I remember my dad's Ford had a straight 6. Wouldn't gain any speed going up hill with a load, wouldn't lose any either... That one had the 300CI 6 and it was plenty strong, even pulling my boat. It had the classic Florida Ford problem tho. They came standard with a 2 core radiator and in hot weather, towing, they ran hot. I put in a 3 core and the problem was fixed. I had to do the same thing with my E150 van. The 300 straight six was a torque monster. My dad had one in a 4x4, and in low range in 1st, you could let out the clutch and about walk beside it at idle. At that same idle, it would just about climb a tree. Great truck motor. I liked the third generation Ford sixes, started out as a 144, then stroke was lengthened to a 170, then they took the 170 bottom end and made the 200, seen in Comets and such. Then they again lengthened the 200 stroke into the 250, a real beast of a six. I had a '69 Fairlane 2 door that had the 250 in it, and a 289 V8 had a hard time beating me. I also beat a friend's Duster with a 318 V8 more than once. |
Back to the Dakota..
In article ,
says... On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:38:16 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Monday, June 10, 2013 8:40:05 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... With someone more skilled than I am driving it, my motorcycle will blow the doors off that Ford truck in 0-60 and in the quarter mile and again, with the right driver, leave that 911 Turbo you had behind, too. But...not me with driving. Only in a straight line. A car has more grip in the corners, and has the advantage on the track. You have to turn sooner or later. Wait, are you saying that a car will out corner a motorcycle? Yes! Not true, the reason being, you are right in thinking because of the amount of tire contact a car has does give it a greater friction coefficient, you also have mass to deal with, and simply physics will tell you that a given mass wants to stay in a straight line, and that mass is MUCH greater with a car. It's a centrifugal force thing! So, all in all, they are closer to equal than anything. Motorcycle has less contact patch, but also less mass. There must be some reason that nearly every track record is held by a 4 wheeled vehicle. Much greater traction coupled with aerodynamic down force the bike doesn't have. Nah, you're probably right, they're equal. A little bit of dampness and that motorcycle will slow down in a big hurry. John H. So won't the car. |
Back to the Dakota..
In article ,
says... On 6/10/13 8:40 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... With someone more skilled than I am driving it, my motorcycle will blow the doors off that Ford truck in 0-60 and in the quarter mile and again, with the right driver, leave that 911 Turbo you had behind, too. But...not me with driving. Only in a straight line. A car has more grip in the corners, and has the advantage on the track. You have to turn sooner or later. Wait, are you saying that a car will out corner a motorcycle? Not true, the reason being, you are right in thinking because of the amount of tire contact a car has does give it a greater friction coefficient, you also have mass to deal with, and simply physics will tell you that a given mass wants to stay in a straight line, and that mass is MUCH greater with a car. It's a centrifugal force thing! So, all in all, they are closer to equal than anything. Motorcycle has less contact patch, but also less mass. It depends on the track and the vehicles. On a relatively simply track, like, for example, Daytona, certain Italian motorcycles will blow the doors off your Ferraris, Porsches, and Corvettes with similar top speeds because they will out-accelerate these four wheeled vehicles, and braking isn't as severe as it would be on a more difficult track with lots of complex, tight turns. On the more severe tracks, the motorcycles cannot go as deep and as fast into the tight turns as the cars, which have better brakes, so the cars can play catchup. The bikes may still finish faster, but only because of their acceleration abilities. This has been demonstrated many times with top drivers in each category. It's the brakes. Physical science doesn't change because of opinion. |
Back to the Dakota..
|
Back to the Dakota..
In article ,
says... On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 08:21:14 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Hank©" wrote in message eb.com... On 6/10/2013 9:37 PM, wrote: You still don't know where the gas went. You will be back. About 3 mos. ago I had exactly the same scenario as Eisboch, including the difficulty getting the compressor to start. Over several years, the charge can leak past the seals. Mine has been working fine since the recharge. Knock on wood. ----------------------------------------------- The seals that typically go bad are simple Buna or Viton O'rings. They are not perfect seals, even when new. They have a specification called "permeability" that relates to how many molecules can pass through the material it's made of. Dealt with this routinely in the high vacuum equipment business. Assuming no real "leaks", the permeability of the various O'ring seals used on the vacuum system is what limited the ultimate level of vacuum that could be achieved. In ultra high vacuum systems, use of Buna or Viton O'rings are used sparingly and compressed copper metal seals are used instead. One of the features of the 134A refrigerant that replaced freon 12 is that the gas molecules are smaller and the number of molecules that can pass "through" the O'ring material is higher. If the O'ring is kept lubricated (contained in the 134A refrigerant), the amount lost due to permeability is reduced. But if the system sits, unused for lengthy periods of time, enough can pass through the O'ring seals to make the system inoperable. I think the old Freon 12 systems had a high pressure cut out that disengaged the clutch, causing the system to cycle on and off in normal operation. What appears to be new in the more modern systems is a transducer that also monitors the low side pressure side. If it drops too much, the clutch will not engage. It's purpose is to prevent damage to the compressor by running it "dry". I am not an AC expert by any means but it makes sense to me. Car AC units have had a low pressure cut out for years. My 83 Firebird had it. It took 2 cans of gas to get it going from empty. My father had a '70 Merc that had a low pressure cut out on it. |
Back to the Dakota..
wrote in message ... On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 08:21:14 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: I think the old Freon 12 systems had a high pressure cut out that disengaged the clutch, causing the system to cycle on and off in normal operation. What appears to be new in the more modern systems is a transducer that also monitors the low side pressure side. If it drops too much, the clutch will not engage. It's purpose is to prevent damage to the compressor by running it "dry". I am not an AC expert by any means but it makes sense to me. Car AC units have had a low pressure cut out for years. My 83 Firebird had it. It took 2 cans of gas to get it going from empty. ------------------------------------------- Thanks. I never knew that. Actually I don't know much about AC systems period ....especially in cars. Fooling around with the one in the little Saturn has been educational. |
Back to the Dakota..
On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 8:54:07 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... There must be some reason that nearly every track record is held by a 4 wheeled vehicle. Cite? Barcelona 2005 Formula One - Fisicella's Renault - 1:15.641 fast lap. MotoGP - Gibernau's Honda - 1:42.337 fast lap. PHILLIP ISLAND GRAND PRIX CIRCUIT LAP RECORDS OUTRIGHT SIMON WILLS REYNARD 94D 13/02/2000 1.24.2215 FORMULA 4000 SIMON WILLS REYNARD 94D 13/02/2000 1.24.2215 PHILLIP ISLAND GRAND PRIX CIRCUIT MOTORCYCLE LAP RECORDS MotoGP Marco Melandri (Ita) Honda RC211V 1:30.332 16-Oct-05 Pole : Nicky Hayden (USA) Honda RC211V 1:29.020 16-Sep-06 A couple of results from a quick google. You can do the rest of the work. Pretty much the only tracks where you'll find faster times for bikes are the tracks specifically designed for bikes. Cars obviously enjoy enough of an advantage from their superior traction, brakes and downforce that it negates the bike's advantage of less mass and better power/weight ratio. Not by a lot, but 6 - 27 seconds (the diff in the examples above) is a lot on a track. Have fun. |
Back to the Dakota..
In article ,
says... On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 8:54:07 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... There must be some reason that nearly every track record is held by a 4 wheeled vehicle. Cite? Barcelona 2005 Formula One - Fisicella's Renault - 1:15.641 fast lap. MotoGP - Gibernau's Honda - 1:42.337 fast lap. PHILLIP ISLAND GRAND PRIX CIRCUIT LAP RECORDS OUTRIGHT SIMON WILLS REYNARD 94D 13/02/2000 1.24.2215 FORMULA 4000 SIMON WILLS REYNARD 94D 13/02/2000 1.24.2215 PHILLIP ISLAND GRAND PRIX CIRCUIT MOTORCYCLE LAP RECORDS MotoGP Marco Melandri (Ita) Honda RC211V 1:30.332 16-Oct-05 Pole : Nicky Hayden (USA) Honda RC211V 1:29.020 16-Sep-06 A couple of results from a quick google. You can do the rest of the work. Pretty much the only tracks where you'll find faster times for bikes are the tracks specifically designed for bikes. Cars obviously enjoy enough of an advantage from their superior traction, brakes and downforce that it negates the bike's advantage of less mass and better power/weight ratio. Not by a lot, but 6 - 27 seconds (the diff in the examples above) is a lot on a track. Have fun. Let's see. All tracks made exclusively with cars in mind. Now, how about REAL cites? How about the physics behind your ASSumptions? Superior downforce??? You DO realize, don't you, that a motorcycle, when it leans INTO the curve is keeping it's CG in line with the forces, while a car isn't, correct? |
Back to the Dakota..
|
Back to the Dakota..
On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 3:23:55 PM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 8:54:07 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... There must be some reason that nearly every track record is held by a 4 wheeled vehicle. Cite? Barcelona 2005 Formula One - Fisicella's Renault - 1:15.641 fast lap. MotoGP - Gibernau's Honda - 1:42.337 fast lap. PHILLIP ISLAND GRAND PRIX CIRCUIT LAP RECORDS OUTRIGHT SIMON WILLS REYNARD 94D 13/02/2000 1.24.2215 FORMULA 4000 SIMON WILLS REYNARD 94D 13/02/2000 1.24.2215 PHILLIP ISLAND GRAND PRIX CIRCUIT MOTORCYCLE LAP RECORDS MotoGP Marco Melandri (Ita) Honda RC211V 1:30.332 16-Oct-05 Pole : Nicky Hayden (USA) Honda RC211V 1:29.020 16-Sep-06 A couple of results from a quick google. You can do the rest of the work. Pretty much the only tracks where you'll find faster times for bikes are the tracks specifically designed for bikes. Cars obviously enjoy enough of an advantage from their superior traction, brakes and downforce that it negates the bike's advantage of less mass and better power/weight ratio. Not by a lot, but 6 - 27 seconds (the diff in the examples above) is a lot on a track. Have fun. Let's see. All tracks made exclusively with cars in mind. Tracks that have taken special pains to cater to a bikes special needs are faster for bike. Take that advantage away, and the car is faster. Now, how about REAL cites? How about the physics behind your ASSumptions? Superior downforce??? You DO realize, don't you, that a motorcycle, when it leans INTO the curve is keeping it's CG in line with the forces, while a car isn't, correct? You do realize that the CG of the bike, when leaning into a turn, is attempting to push the tire ACROSS the pavement at the angle of the lean? Meanwhile the car's down force is pushing the tire directly down into the pavement. Keeping the downforce perpendicular is a good thing. Besides, the bike couldn't corner if it didn't lean to keep the CG in line with the cornering force... that's what keeps it from flipping over. That's also what causes the increase of slip angle and traction loss. |
Back to the Dakota..
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:07:14 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 3:23:55 PM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 8:54:07 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... There must be some reason that nearly every track record is held by a 4 wheeled vehicle. Cite? Barcelona 2005 Formula One - Fisicella's Renault - 1:15.641 fast lap. MotoGP - Gibernau's Honda - 1:42.337 fast lap. PHILLIP ISLAND GRAND PRIX CIRCUIT LAP RECORDS OUTRIGHT SIMON WILLS REYNARD 94D 13/02/2000 1.24.2215 FORMULA 4000 SIMON WILLS REYNARD 94D 13/02/2000 1.24.2215 PHILLIP ISLAND GRAND PRIX CIRCUIT MOTORCYCLE LAP RECORDS MotoGP Marco Melandri (Ita) Honda RC211V 1:30.332 16-Oct-05 Pole : Nicky Hayden (USA) Honda RC211V 1:29.020 16-Sep-06 A couple of results from a quick google. You can do the rest of the work. Pretty much the only tracks where you'll find faster times for bikes are the tracks specifically designed for bikes. Cars obviously enjoy enough of an advantage from their superior traction, brakes and downforce that it negates the bike's advantage of less mass and better power/weight ratio. Not by a lot, but 6 - 27 seconds (the diff in the examples above) is a lot on a track. Have fun. Let's see. All tracks made exclusively with cars in mind. Tracks that have taken special pains to cater to a bikes special needs are faster for bike. Take that advantage away, and the car is faster. Now, how about REAL cites? How about the physics behind your ASSumptions? Superior downforce??? You DO realize, don't you, that a motorcycle, when it leans INTO the curve is keeping it's CG in line with the forces, while a car isn't, correct? You do realize that the CG of the bike, when leaning into a turn, is attempting to push the tire ACROSS the pavement at the angle of the lean? Meanwhile the car's down force is pushing the tire directly down into the pavement. Keeping the downforce perpendicular is a good thing. Besides, the bike couldn't corner if it didn't lean to keep the CG in line with the cornering force... that's what keeps it from flipping over. That's also what causes the increase of slip angle and traction loss. One of my brothers was a motorcycle cop in Richland, WA. He was chasing a car through a residential area, the car making turns almost every block. He wasn't able to outrun it, but he was able to keep pretty close. And then they went around a corner where the homeowner's sprinkler was wetting the street. Down he went. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Back to the Dakota..
On 6/11/2013 5:07 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 3:23:55 PM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 8:54:07 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... There must be some reason that nearly every track record is held by a 4 wheeled vehicle. Cite? Barcelona 2005 Formula One - Fisicella's Renault - 1:15.641 fast lap. MotoGP - Gibernau's Honda - 1:42.337 fast lap. PHILLIP ISLAND GRAND PRIX CIRCUIT LAP RECORDS OUTRIGHT SIMON WILLS REYNARD 94D 13/02/2000 1.24.2215 FORMULA 4000 SIMON WILLS REYNARD 94D 13/02/2000 1.24.2215 PHILLIP ISLAND GRAND PRIX CIRCUIT MOTORCYCLE LAP RECORDS MotoGP Marco Melandri (Ita) Honda RC211V 1:30.332 16-Oct-05 Pole : Nicky Hayden (USA) Honda RC211V 1:29.020 16-Sep-06 A couple of results from a quick google. You can do the rest of the work. Pretty much the only tracks where you'll find faster times for bikes are the tracks specifically designed for bikes. Cars obviously enjoy enough of an advantage from their superior traction, brakes and downforce that it negates the bike's advantage of less mass and better power/weight ratio. Not by a lot, but 6 - 27 seconds (the diff in the examples above) is a lot on a track. Have fun. Let's see. All tracks made exclusively with cars in mind. Tracks that have taken special pains to cater to a bikes special needs are faster for bike. Take that advantage away, and the car is faster. Now, how about REAL cites? How about the physics behind your ASSumptions? Superior downforce??? You DO realize, don't you, that a motorcycle, when it leans INTO the curve is keeping it's CG in line with the forces, while a car isn't, correct? You do realize that the CG of the bike, when leaning into a turn, is attempting to push the tire ACROSS the pavement at the angle of the lean? Meanwhile the car's down force is pushing the tire directly down into the pavement. Keeping the downforce perpendicular is a good thing. Besides, the bike couldn't corner if it didn't lean to keep the CG in line with the cornering force... that's what keeps it from flipping over. That's also what causes the increase of slip angle and traction loss. On the street they lean inside in an attempt to keep the bike itself as upright as it can be. They lean so far over the inside they often drag their knee. In the dirt it's exactly opposite. we sit on top of the bike in the corner leaning the bike onto the sidewall which also has grip... This way we try to keep our weight downward as much as possible... Here is a pic: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=motocross+corner+form&FORM=HDRSC2#view=de tail&id=C38AB0076CA6A392D9B898A37782E321807CB0AB&s electedIndex=29 Another little factoid.. The inside foot is not out to drag in MX, it's thrown way forward to 1, keep it from dragging on the ground. 2 to put that extra 15 pounds of foot, boot, and leg, up front to distribute more rider weight forward toward the front axle... |
Back to the Dakota..
On 6/11/2013 5:19 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 6/11/2013 5:07 PM, wrote: On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 3:23:55 PM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 8:54:07 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... There must be some reason that nearly every track record is held by a 4 wheeled vehicle. Cite? Barcelona 2005 Formula One - Fisicella's Renault - 1:15.641 fast lap. MotoGP - Gibernau's Honda - 1:42.337 fast lap. PHILLIP ISLAND GRAND PRIX CIRCUIT LAP RECORDS OUTRIGHT SIMON WILLS REYNARD 94D 13/02/2000 1.24.2215 FORMULA 4000 SIMON WILLS REYNARD 94D 13/02/2000 1.24.2215 PHILLIP ISLAND GRAND PRIX CIRCUIT MOTORCYCLE LAP RECORDS MotoGP Marco Melandri (Ita) Honda RC211V 1:30.332 16-Oct-05 Pole : Nicky Hayden (USA) Honda RC211V 1:29.020 16-Sep-06 A couple of results from a quick google. You can do the rest of the work. Pretty much the only tracks where you'll find faster times for bikes are the tracks specifically designed for bikes. Cars obviously enjoy enough of an advantage from their superior traction, brakes and downforce that it negates the bike's advantage of less mass and better power/weight ratio. Not by a lot, but 6 - 27 seconds (the diff in the examples above) is a lot on a track. Have fun. Let's see. All tracks made exclusively with cars in mind. Tracks that have taken special pains to cater to a bikes special needs are faster for bike. Take that advantage away, and the car is faster. Now, how about REAL cites? How about the physics behind your ASSumptions? Superior downforce??? You DO realize, don't you, that a motorcycle, when it leans INTO the curve is keeping it's CG in line with the forces, while a car isn't, correct? You do realize that the CG of the bike, when leaning into a turn, is attempting to push the tire ACROSS the pavement at the angle of the lean? Meanwhile the car's down force is pushing the tire directly down into the pavement. Keeping the downforce perpendicular is a good thing. Besides, the bike couldn't corner if it didn't lean to keep the CG in line with the cornering force... that's what keeps it from flipping over. That's also what causes the increase of slip angle and traction loss. On the street they lean inside in an attempt to keep the bike itself as upright as it can be. They lean so far over the inside they often drag their knee. In the dirt it's exactly opposite. we sit on top of the bike in the corner leaning the bike onto the sidewall which also has grip... This way we try to keep our weight downward as much as possible... Here is a pic: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=motocross+corner+form&FORM=HDRSC2#view=de tail&id=C38AB0076CA6A392D9B898A37782E321807CB0AB&s electedIndex=29 Another little factoid.. The inside foot is not out to drag in MX, it's thrown way forward to 1, keep it from dragging on the ground. 2 to put that extra 15 pounds of foot, boot, and leg, up front to distribute more rider weight forward toward the front axle... Here is a better example of why that inside foot can't stay on the peg and must go forward..: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=motocross+corner+positition&qs=n&form=QBI R&pq=motocross+corner+positition&sc=0-17&sp=-1&sk=#view=detail&id=99B32D5EC7AD33A7B347EE76BD6A5 815FECC62BD&selectedIndex=1 If he tried to leave it on the peg, he would leave it in the corner:) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Back to the Dakota..
|
Back to the Dakota..
In article ,
says... On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 3:23:55 PM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 8:54:07 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... There must be some reason that nearly every track record is held by a 4 wheeled vehicle. Cite? Barcelona 2005 Formula One - Fisicella's Renault - 1:15.641 fast lap. MotoGP - Gibernau's Honda - 1:42.337 fast lap. PHILLIP ISLAND GRAND PRIX CIRCUIT LAP RECORDS OUTRIGHT SIMON WILLS REYNARD 94D 13/02/2000 1.24.2215 FORMULA 4000 SIMON WILLS REYNARD 94D 13/02/2000 1.24.2215 PHILLIP ISLAND GRAND PRIX CIRCUIT MOTORCYCLE LAP RECORDS MotoGP Marco Melandri (Ita) Honda RC211V 1:30.332 16-Oct-05 Pole : Nicky Hayden (USA) Honda RC211V 1:29.020 16-Sep-06 A couple of results from a quick google. You can do the rest of the work. Pretty much the only tracks where you'll find faster times for bikes are the tracks specifically designed for bikes. Cars obviously enjoy enough of an advantage from their superior traction, brakes and downforce that it negates the bike's advantage of less mass and better power/weight ratio. Not by a lot, but 6 - 27 seconds (the diff in the examples above) is a lot on a track. Have fun. Let's see. All tracks made exclusively with cars in mind. Tracks that have taken special pains to cater to a bikes special needs are faster for bike. Take that advantage away, and the car is faster. Now, how about REAL cites? How about the physics behind your ASSumptions? Superior downforce??? You DO realize, don't you, that a motorcycle, when it leans INTO the curve is keeping it's CG in line with the forces, while a car isn't, correct? You do realize that the CG of the bike, when leaning into a turn, is attempting to push the tire ACROSS the pavement at the angle of the lean? Meanwhile the car's down force is pushing the tire directly down into the pavement. Keeping the downforce perpendicular is a good thing. Besides, the bike couldn't corner if it didn't lean to keep the CG in line with the cornering force... that's what keeps it from flipping over. That's also what causes the increase of slip angle and traction loss. Okay, time for a simple physcis lesson, let's start with vector mechanics, shall we? An object in motion tends to stay in motion AND tends to stay in a straight line. For a simple demonstration of this, take two strings, both say a foot long. Attach a one ounce ball to one of them, and a 5 ounce ball to the other. Then swing them in a circle and see which one takes the most effort on your part to hold on to. This is an example of mass and velocity trying to keep those balls in a straight line and you are having to restrain them from doing so by holding the string. Force equals mass times acceleration. Simple as that. What has more mass, the motorcycle or the car that weighs 4 times as much? The car at the same speed has 4 times the force and this force wants to stay in a straight line. So, it takes 4 times the resistance to achieve this. The only thing affecting this is the tire coefficent of friction. Therefore the car has to have enough surface area, and friction ability to to overcome 4 times the force. NOW we have the problem of the car being at a much higher center of gravity vertically. While the motorcycle's CG changes to be more inline with the force vector, the cars remains unchanged and is not as near to in line with the vector as the motorcycle's? |
Back to the Dakota..
On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 8:36:01 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
Okay, time for a simple physcis lesson... Therefore the car has to have enough surface area, and friction ability to to overcome 4 times the force. The car has far more than 4 times the contact patch. And, the car also shifts its CG to load up the outside tires in a turn, applying more down force to them. And, the car applies it's down force (traction) in a turn like this: _|_ while the bike is like this: _\_ If the desired result is to not slide across the pavement, which do you think is more efficient way to apply down force to resist that tendency? You're concentrating on one tiny little aspect of the issue. Time to open your mind and that basic physics book! Fact is, unless the track is specifically designed for the inherent weaknesses of bikes, cars almost always turn faster lap times. The ability to take the turns faster and better brakes more than makes up for the bike's better acceleration on most tracks. |
Back to the Dakota..
|
Back to the Dakota..
wrote in message ... On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 8:36:01 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: Okay, time for a simple physcis lesson... Therefore the car has to have enough surface area, and friction ability to to overcome 4 times the force. The car has far more than 4 times the contact patch. And, the car also shifts its CG to load up the outside tires in a turn, applying more down force to them. And, the car applies it's down force (traction) in a turn like this: _|_ while the bike is like this: _\_ If the desired result is to not slide across the pavement, which do you think is more efficient way to apply down force to resist that tendency? You're concentrating on one tiny little aspect of the issue. Time to open your mind and that basic physics book! Fact is, unless the track is specifically designed for the inherent weaknesses of bikes, cars almost always turn faster lap times. The ability to take the turns faster and better brakes more than makes up for the bike's better acceleration on most tracks. ------------------------------------ As evidenced by virtually all real world tests done on the subject. I had to let iBoaterer out of the Bozo bin to see what the heck he was talking about. His analysis on the subject is flawed. A car can overcome the centrifugal forces (to a point) due to transferring them to the two outside tires, allowing it to corner at faster speeds. If you could measure the forces, they would be huge. A motorcycle rider can't compensate enough by leaning at the same speed or even near the same speed. He's relying on a "counterbalance" effect which can't be nearly high enough. Now, if the motorcycle rider had outriggers that he could climb out onto for additional mechanical advantage, he could corner faster. |
Back to the Dakota..
On 6/12/13 9:57 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message ... On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 8:36:01 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: Okay, time for a simple physcis lesson... Therefore the car has to have enough surface area, and friction ability to to overcome 4 times the force. The car has far more than 4 times the contact patch. And, the car also shifts its CG to load up the outside tires in a turn, applying more down force to them. And, the car applies it's down force (traction) in a turn like this: _|_ while the bike is like this: _\_ If the desired result is to not slide across the pavement, which do you think is more efficient way to apply down force to resist that tendency? You're concentrating on one tiny little aspect of the issue. Time to open your mind and that basic physics book! Fact is, unless the track is specifically designed for the inherent weaknesses of bikes, cars almost always turn faster lap times. The ability to take the turns faster and better brakes more than makes up for the bike's better acceleration on most tracks. ------------------------------------ As evidenced by virtually all real world tests done on the subject. I had to let iBoaterer out of the Bozo bin to see what the heck he was talking about. His analysis on the subject is flawed. A car can overcome the centrifugal forces (to a point) due to transferring them to the two outside tires, allowing it to corner at faster speeds. If you could measure the forces, they would be huge. A motorcycle rider can't compensate enough by leaning at the same speed or even near the same speed. He's relying on a "counterbalance" effect which can't be nearly high enough. Now, if the motorcycle rider had outriggers that he could climb out onto for additional mechanical advantage, he could corner faster. Every video of top drivers I've seen, one on a top of the line racing bike and the other in a hot car, shows the bike typically outaccelerating the car in the straights, and the car pretty close to catching the bike in sharp turns, both because it has better brakes and more ability to corner. In the end, though, in a "race" that incorporates multiple circuits of the course, the bike typically "wins" because of its acceleration. |
Back to the Dakota..
|
Back to the Dakota..
"iBoaterer" wrote in message ... You are totally and conveniently forgetting the laws of physics. When the car loads the two outside tires, thus transferring most of the force to half of the contact area (since the two inside tires are doing virtually no work) that in fact does right the opposite, less contact area, less traction. The motorcycle, on the other hand because of fact that it's CG is in line with the vector only causes more friction by force. And while there is more friction by force on the car's two outside wheels, there is also less friction by force on the inside wheels. So, you now have a car with 4 times the mass using about the same tire contact area as the motorcycle. ---------------------------------------- You are talking two different things here. Stiction/Friction (traction) is one thing. Centrifugal forces due to the turn is another. In the case of high speed motorcycle cornering the latter is the governing issue, traction is secondary (until both the car and the motorcycle exceeds the limit). The gyroscopic effect of the motorcycle cannot be overcome by a weight shift by the rider sufficiently to make a high speed turn as quickly as the car. Granted, at parking lot speeds a motorcycle can turn faster than a car, but that's due to it's much shorter turn radius and the absence of any significant centrifugal force. But at high speeds, centrifugal force becomes the deciding factor. |
Back to the Dakota..
On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:04:24 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
So, you now have a car with 4 times the mass using about the same tire contact area as the motorcycle. BS. Cite? BTW... like many sports and race cars, my old Boxster's rear tires had a lot of camber to allow the tire to have better contact with the road when in a high speed turn. Wears out the inside edge quickly, but increases grip dramatically. That big, flat patch of rubber stays on the pavement. Bikes can't have flat surfaced tires, so their contact patches are very small all the time. |
Back to the Dakota..
In article ,
says... On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:04:24 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: So, you now have a car with 4 times the mass using about the same tire contact area as the motorcycle. BS. Cite? http://www.porsche.com/international/models/911/911- carrera/featuresandspecs/ (140kg laden weight) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ducati_848 (Dry weight 370 pounds, so if you take it's laden weight of say 600 pounds we're close) BTW... like many sports and race cars, my old Boxster's rear tires had a lot of camber to allow the tire to have better contact with the road when in a high speed turn. Wears out the inside edge quickly, but increases grip dramatically. That big, flat patch of rubber stays on the pavement. Bikes can't have flat surfaced tires, so their contact patches are very small all the time. Oh, now you want to talk specialty cars, but street motorcycles!!!!! Well, the contact are for a road course motorcycle is large as well for just that purpose. Plus, you've forgotten that pesky physical fact that you are trying to turn 4 or 5 times the mass of something that wants to go straight. |
Back to the Dakota..
|
Back to the Dakota..
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com