"How fast can it go?" - Check here to find out!
#21
10-24-2000, 01:27 PM
I honestly believe the level of mature conversation has been tossed right out the door!
Why is it that when someone/anyone offers what appears to be a lucid, basic comment that most find a need to belittle and invoke ad hominem.
This problem is as old as all types of discussion; is there a God, and is God active among mankind: should I vote democratic or republican: pro-choice or pro-life: longbow, recurve, compound or crossbow: Coke or pepsi: Gordon or Earnhardt: Honda, Polaris, Kawasaki or whatever?
Armyman was simply offering one perspective for all those that say, "my Recon cam go 100 mph and you Raptor can't. Please. All this fighting and bantering does nothing but to divide the ranks of all of us who really need to put these types of issues behind us and satnad up to those who would take away our rights to enjoy our sport, no matter the manufacture or speed of our rides.
to quote Rodney King, and I don't do this that often due to the comic relief associated with it, "can't we all just get along?"
I realize maturity is something that as a nation we have abandoned, but please let's stop with the personal attacks! If you dissagree with the formula given offer one that is as understandable and lucid.
Why is it that when someone/anyone offers what appears to be a lucid, basic comment that most find a need to belittle and invoke ad hominem.
This problem is as old as all types of discussion; is there a God, and is God active among mankind: should I vote democratic or republican: pro-choice or pro-life: longbow, recurve, compound or crossbow: Coke or pepsi: Gordon or Earnhardt: Honda, Polaris, Kawasaki or whatever?
Armyman was simply offering one perspective for all those that say, "my Recon cam go 100 mph and you Raptor can't. Please. All this fighting and bantering does nothing but to divide the ranks of all of us who really need to put these types of issues behind us and satnad up to those who would take away our rights to enjoy our sport, no matter the manufacture or speed of our rides.
to quote Rodney King, and I don't do this that often due to the comic relief associated with it, "can't we all just get along?"
I realize maturity is something that as a nation we have abandoned, but please let's stop with the personal attacks! If you dissagree with the formula given offer one that is as understandable and lucid.
#22
10-25-2000, 02:06 AM
#23
10-25-2000, 07:28 AM
#25
10-25-2000, 04:28 PM
It's not very difficult to do those maths...it's pure basic...but you shouldn't forget air friction...true that on a bayou, it won't be very important, because you have to reach a certain speed...hehe. kidding
It's cool, sure, but it's theory...basic maths (maths is always basic) and approximative physics, simply because there is friction mostly everywhere (that's why a more powerful quad will get you to higher speeds), friction in the engine, gearbox, chain, bearings, tires/terrain, and AIR friction, which is a lot. If I find the formula (I better find it soon I have an exam tomorrow!!!), I'll post it...but it will be way harder to calculate your top speed, because you need the frontal area (your quad and you), and air density...becoming tough, but more real.
Still, the 100% maths stuff is good and SIMPLE.
It's cool, sure, but it's theory...basic maths (maths is always basic) and approximative physics, simply because there is friction mostly everywhere (that's why a more powerful quad will get you to higher speeds), friction in the engine, gearbox, chain, bearings, tires/terrain, and AIR friction, which is a lot. If I find the formula (I better find it soon I have an exam tomorrow!!!), I'll post it...but it will be way harder to calculate your top speed, because you need the frontal area (your quad and you), and air density...becoming tough, but more real.
Still, the 100% maths stuff is good and SIMPLE.
#26
10-26-2000, 10:44 AM
Well I was going to just let this go, take my little scolding from HondaHunter and move on. But the more I thought about it, the more I felt it necessary to make some type of reply. In all honesty I think you might be overreacting to the situation(which I guess you have every right to do so). Armyman made a very nice presentation. His theory was quite valid up to a point. I simply offered a sugestion of how else it might be used, and an example of how you can't always go on theory to get to the truth. I guess my attempt at humor might have made him a little miffed, although that was not my intent. I was not attacking him or his theory. Well his reply about the garbage thing did indeed get me going a bit. Then when it was repeated for effect in the next post it got me going a bit more. But to me it was all basically in good fun. I wasn't injured by it, as I'm pretty sure Armyman wasn't either. IF he was I am sorry. I would think that it would take a much greater attack then what I could ever muster to really effect him.
But that it really beside the point. My point would be that yes we could focus our energy to a more important task. But really what does it hurt? If anything it provided a little diversion from the other types of topics. It was just somthing a little different. It was about ATVs so it fit the criteria of this forum. I personally enjoy reading things a bit off the norm like which quad should I buy, how great or how hyped the Raptor is and other typical topics.
But that it really beside the point. My point would be that yes we could focus our energy to a more important task. But really what does it hurt? If anything it provided a little diversion from the other types of topics. It was just somthing a little different. It was about ATVs so it fit the criteria of this forum. I personally enjoy reading things a bit off the norm like which quad should I buy, how great or how hyped the Raptor is and other typical topics.
#27
10-26-2000, 09:44 PM
Sorry for the comment, but I am currently enrolled in an advanced physics course and noticed that you failed to include the results of friction and air resistance in your equations. Everything depends on the weight of the quad, the tires you have, the terrrain you ride across, wind direction, and the wits of the rider. However, you are correct in stating that the values are theoretical, but theories include everything that affect the system. (Don't ask me how to calculate for air resistance and friction 
)
)
#28
10-27-2000, 12:54 AM
My brain hurts, can I go now.
Wanna have some REAL fun???
Read Armyman's posts with an uptight english accent. I'ts a real hoot.
Armyman, all I can say is you sir,are a friggin' genius.
How about giving us the formula for calculating the speed of an ATV dropped out an airplane.
No,wait, Al Gore dropped out....
Wanna have some REAL fun???
Read Armyman's posts with an uptight english accent. I'ts a real hoot.
Armyman, all I can say is you sir,are a friggin' genius.
How about giving us the formula for calculating the speed of an ATV dropped out an airplane.
No,wait, Al Gore dropped out....
#29
10-27-2000, 08:54 PM
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ursus, bear with me here while I revisit what has transpired thus far:
I was not "injured" or offended by any of your comments, thought I did drop out of the tit-for-tat exchange when you shifted to ad hominem attacks such as the "stupid computer people" comment. That's all water under the bridge though.
Let me once again explain my original purpose in making the post. I have participated in this Forum very nearly since its inception. In that time I have seen repeated requests for information related to gearing changes, or tire size changes (which are effectively the same thing). I sought to help those individuals making such requests by providing an elementary formula broken down into three easy to understand parts. With this formula, anyone with a 4-function calculator could gain some immediate insight into what would "theoretically" happen if they went from a 16-tooth countershaft sprocket, to a 15-tooth countershaft sprocket, or if they went to a larger diameter tire to grain some ground clearance, for example.
For questions typical of those kinds of queries, the formula I presented provides very satisfactory answers very quickly. When you postulated 50-inch truck tires on a quad as a way of doubling the vehicles speed, I responded with a short note indicating the premise was flawed. And summed up with the well-known computer phrase, "Garbage In, Garbage Out".
This expression simply means that when a computer (or formula) is given invalid data to work with, then meaningless results are to be expected.
So your 50-inch tires, and my 100,000 RPM engine, both of which can not exist for an ATV constitute data the is "out-of-range" and thus invalid in a real-world situation, i.e., "garbage".
You then responded to my short post saying that the premise was "not flawed". And summed up with an ad hominem attack. At that point any intended humor, a commodity in short supply anyway, was lost.
I then posted another explanation of the formula designed to further the understanding that when it was used as intended, it did provide meaningful, though approximate, results.
You then replied with another post that belittled the formula. I usually try to avoid beating a dead horse whenever possible, and since striving to have the “last word” with someone determined to argue solely for the sake of arguing is rarely productive, I elected to drop out of the tit-for-tat exchange.
Honda Hunter then posted comments wherein he noted the ad hominem attacks and the belittling tone of those posts.
At that point you thought it necessary to reply to Honda Hunter’s “scolding” and you decided to offer up an explanation of your attempt at interjecting “humor” into the discussion. You also apologized for any injury you may have caused me, and allowed as how it would probably take a great deal more than what occurred to have any effect on me.
I incurred no injury from the exchange, nor did I take any offense. In a forum such as this where anonymous posters can say whatever they like, I long ago ceased to take umbrage at negative comments and ad hominem attacks. If it is possible to conduct a rational dialog with an individual based on the facts, then I do. Otherwise, I’ve found that simply letting the issue drop is the best approach as it wastes the least amount of my time and energy.
Had you taken me to task for a factual error in my formula, and provided proof of its existence, I would have been the first to agree with you. And I would have hastened to amend my post to correct any errors.
Several other posters have noted that I did not allow for air resistance, friction, temperature, barometric pressure, and the like in my calculations. As a former nuclear chemist who worked on developing one of the few successful commercial Light Water Breeder Reactors in World, I could have easily supplied all of the math anyone could have possibly wanted. But since any advanced math would have defeated my purpose, and since the vast majority of the comments, about “missing variables”, were obviously good-natured kibitzing, I saw no need to respond.
In accordance with my basic Internet Discussion Forum policy, I had not planned on further responses to any additional posts by you. However, your post of 10-26 at 8:44 AM wherein you note that that your initial posts were not perceived as you intended they should be, that your intention was benign humor, and that you were sorry for any misperceptions regarding your prior posts, caused me to reverse my decision.
At heart you seem like a reasonable fellow, albeit with a dry wit. Let us be friends. If you find cause to take issue with any position I may espouse, let it be for reasons of misstatement, or misapplication, of fact. If it is not but a difference of opinion, let it clearly be labeled as such. I believe this policy will best serve all participants of this Forum.
Army Man
P.S. And as poster "Snoway" noted, if you read this with an "uptight English accent, it's a real hoot".
Enjoy.
A.M.
I was not "injured" or offended by any of your comments, thought I did drop out of the tit-for-tat exchange when you shifted to ad hominem attacks such as the "stupid computer people" comment. That's all water under the bridge though.
Let me once again explain my original purpose in making the post. I have participated in this Forum very nearly since its inception. In that time I have seen repeated requests for information related to gearing changes, or tire size changes (which are effectively the same thing). I sought to help those individuals making such requests by providing an elementary formula broken down into three easy to understand parts. With this formula, anyone with a 4-function calculator could gain some immediate insight into what would "theoretically" happen if they went from a 16-tooth countershaft sprocket, to a 15-tooth countershaft sprocket, or if they went to a larger diameter tire to grain some ground clearance, for example.
For questions typical of those kinds of queries, the formula I presented provides very satisfactory answers very quickly. When you postulated 50-inch truck tires on a quad as a way of doubling the vehicles speed, I responded with a short note indicating the premise was flawed. And summed up with the well-known computer phrase, "Garbage In, Garbage Out".
This expression simply means that when a computer (or formula) is given invalid data to work with, then meaningless results are to be expected.
So your 50-inch tires, and my 100,000 RPM engine, both of which can not exist for an ATV constitute data the is "out-of-range" and thus invalid in a real-world situation, i.e., "garbage".
You then responded to my short post saying that the premise was "not flawed". And summed up with an ad hominem attack. At that point any intended humor, a commodity in short supply anyway, was lost.
I then posted another explanation of the formula designed to further the understanding that when it was used as intended, it did provide meaningful, though approximate, results.
You then replied with another post that belittled the formula. I usually try to avoid beating a dead horse whenever possible, and since striving to have the “last word” with someone determined to argue solely for the sake of arguing is rarely productive, I elected to drop out of the tit-for-tat exchange.
Honda Hunter then posted comments wherein he noted the ad hominem attacks and the belittling tone of those posts.
At that point you thought it necessary to reply to Honda Hunter’s “scolding” and you decided to offer up an explanation of your attempt at interjecting “humor” into the discussion. You also apologized for any injury you may have caused me, and allowed as how it would probably take a great deal more than what occurred to have any effect on me.
I incurred no injury from the exchange, nor did I take any offense. In a forum such as this where anonymous posters can say whatever they like, I long ago ceased to take umbrage at negative comments and ad hominem attacks. If it is possible to conduct a rational dialog with an individual based on the facts, then I do. Otherwise, I’ve found that simply letting the issue drop is the best approach as it wastes the least amount of my time and energy.
Had you taken me to task for a factual error in my formula, and provided proof of its existence, I would have been the first to agree with you. And I would have hastened to amend my post to correct any errors.
Several other posters have noted that I did not allow for air resistance, friction, temperature, barometric pressure, and the like in my calculations. As a former nuclear chemist who worked on developing one of the few successful commercial Light Water Breeder Reactors in World, I could have easily supplied all of the math anyone could have possibly wanted. But since any advanced math would have defeated my purpose, and since the vast majority of the comments, about “missing variables”, were obviously good-natured kibitzing, I saw no need to respond.
In accordance with my basic Internet Discussion Forum policy, I had not planned on further responses to any additional posts by you. However, your post of 10-26 at 8:44 AM wherein you note that that your initial posts were not perceived as you intended they should be, that your intention was benign humor, and that you were sorry for any misperceptions regarding your prior posts, caused me to reverse my decision.
At heart you seem like a reasonable fellow, albeit with a dry wit. Let us be friends. If you find cause to take issue with any position I may espouse, let it be for reasons of misstatement, or misapplication, of fact. If it is not but a difference of opinion, let it clearly be labeled as such. I believe this policy will best serve all participants of this Forum.
Army Man
P.S. And as poster "Snoway" noted, if you read this with an "uptight English accent, it's a real hoot".
Enjoy.
A.M.
#30
10-30-2000, 09:23 PM
/////////////////////////
THIS POST EDITED BY THE MODERATOR:
The ATV Connection Forum Guidelines prohibit foul language and personal attacks. You have placed your Forum posting PRIVILEGES at risk. Continued use of foul language WILL result in disciplinary sanctions up to and including TERMINATION of your posting privileges. Thank you for your cooperation.
Moderators log all instances of foul language. Three strikes and you're out. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
ATVBBS
////////////////////////
THIS POST EDITED BY THE MODERATOR:
The ATV Connection Forum Guidelines prohibit foul language and personal attacks. You have placed your Forum posting PRIVILEGES at risk. Continued use of foul language WILL result in disciplinary sanctions up to and including TERMINATION of your posting privileges. Thank you for your cooperation.
Moderators log all instances of foul language. Three strikes and you're out. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
ATVBBS
////////////////////////