[quote]
TainanCowboy, I’m wondering if you could share your expert opinion on why people wear their raincoats back to front here.
I have been doing some scientific investigations on the subject, but I would like to hear what an expert has to say before I make a fool of myself.[/quote]
If I can just step in here - As I have pointed out, with all that light shooting “forward” from the headlight, the scoot is actually moving backwards (in a relative sense), vis-a-vis Einstein’s laws of scoot specific relativity
1
. So in the relative sense of planetary motion (sumo science - the science of the movement of large bodies, as was correct pointed out by my esteemed colleague T.Cowboy) against the scoot movements within the confines of the Taiwanese borders, the scoot pilot wearing of apparently rearward facing raincoat actually is forward wearing in a “universal” sense.
1 Some parts of this may have been fabricated to support this otherwise robust theory.
[quote=“irishstu”]
TainanCowboy, I’m wondering if you could share your expert opinion on why people wear their raincoats back to front here.
I have been doing some scientific investigations on the subject, but I would like to hear what an expert has to say before I make a fool of myself.[/quote]
[quote=“ac”]If I can just step in here - As I have pointed out, with all that light shooting “forward” from the headlight, the scoot is actually moving backwards (in a relative sense), vis-a-vis Einstein’s laws of scoot specific relativity
1
. So in the relative sense of planetary motion (sumo science - the science of the movement of large bodies, as was correct pointed out by my esteemed colleague T.Cowboy) against the scoot movements within the confines of the Taiwanese borders, the scoot pilot wearing of apparently rearward facing raincoat actually is forward wearing in a “universal” sense.
1 Some parts of this may have been fabricated to support this otherwise robust theory.
[/quote]IrishStu -
As my otherwise esteemed colleague has gesticated to you, this is a matter of universiality. The mere wearing of the jacket in a reverse maner is not as simplified and appropriated as one might at first glance cogitate.
Taiwan, as we know and utlilate, is an ancient and aged culture promogulated on the wisdoms and beliefeses of the mysterious Orientated peoples. Thru centuries and years of study and applicating various body movements and resulting mind excercies they have in some way been able to tap into a foce they refer to as "chi.’ This has been proven with sceptical investgation by Western scientists, of which our Thinkin’ Tank is a delegated and card holding member of.
Through this esoterical dynamical known as “chi” it has been discovered that all coverings of the body either enable or not the body micron, protons and moleculars transpassing the shield of skin and clothing. Now this can have either beneficial resultings for the human involved or not.
How this transmorgificates into the “backward jacket scooter rider” question is a simple extrapollution of this scientifical fixture.
The chest and heart, and liver - very important organ the liver, life without one is seriously limited - are located closer to the front of the body and less protected by the bony skeletal structure than in the hindmost area of the human form. By the wearing of the reversed jacket, thus providing an uninterrupted shielding to these parts, the scooter rider is obeying a rule of protection long evolved in the mysterious Ornamental Cosmos Universicality mind frame.
you forgot to factor in the weight difference you now have after riding home so tanked.
after your obvious night of liquid enlightenment you are now much heavier, than say after you worked your ass off all day, and were then, much lighter. so it all evens out.
the law of averages always takes over. you are not always going to drive home tanked with your lights on. nor are you always going to ride home sober with your lights off.
your gas tank doesn’t care if you are fresh out of work, or heavily laden with extra carbs and water, well after work.
average is average, it’s an average, and you would have to increase your sample size tremendously to prove anything to me… so… what’s your sample size (your “n”)?
[quote=“twocs”][quote=“Stian”]Creating the light require electrisety generated by the engine witch use fuel to make the electrisety.
Using head lights would increase the fuel consumption.[/quote]
That’s nonsense. Using headlights actually increases the fuel economy because the lights are part of the electrical system, not the fuel system. Also, since the light from the headlights illuminates the road ahead, the vehicle will additionally enjoy an added degree of traction. If you can’t detect the improvement with lights on, you might need to get the light cleaned at a repair shop.[/quote]
And the electrical system is feeded by the battery and the battery is charged by the engine witch is fuled by gasoline.The idial hing is to remove the whole electrical system and use a candle inside the head light.
Offcourse you have to look at the candle price vs the oilprice, but on the other hand taiwan seams not to care if you ride with or without light.
[quote=“twocs”][quote=“Stian”]Creating the light require electrisety generated by the engine witch use fuel to make the electrisety.
Using head lights would increase the fuel consumption.[/quote]
That’s nonsense. Using headlights actually increases the fuel economy because the lights are part of the electrical system, not the fuel system. Also, since the light from the headlights illuminates the road ahead, the vehicle will additionally enjoy an added degree of traction. If you can’t detect the improvement with lights on, you might need to get the light cleaned at a repair shop.[/quote]
I think you have your science confused.
The increase in fuel economy is related to a reduction of the traction. When you turn on the lights the road under the tyres is unlit and so provides the start traction required. The light heats the road in front creating a thermal wave which gives lift as your tyres reach it. This reduces the friction effect thus increasing the fuel economy. It is perfectly safe since you now only need traction when you turn - and since you will turn on to a cold section of road all is well. That also explains why roads are black.
So, two 55-watt headlamps would be 110 watts, or 0.15 horsepower.
Just from a pure power standpoint… There are frictional losses with belts, losses in the rectifier, etc.
I don’t think it makes much of a difference, unless you’re talking about really small engines. A car engine at highway cruise RPM probably wouldn’t notice.
So, two 55-watt headlamps would be 110 watts, or 0.15 horsepower.
Just from a pure power standpoint… There are frictional losses with belts, losses in the rectifier, etc.
I don’t think it makes much of a difference, unless you’re talking about really small engines. A car engine at highway cruise RPM probably wouldn’t notice.[/quote]
Anyway, just to keep up the tone of THIS thread, let me pick holes in your scientific “proof”:
In order for the headlamps to produce said energy, a power conversion needs to be made from watts to horsepower.
A little known (and somewhat controversial) scientific theory states that converting from electrical measurements to animal (horse in this case) measurements actually saves fuel, as animals use less fuel than machinery.
Sorry if I seem to be disrespecting you claims, but I beg to differ. One only has to rest one’s forehead on a cold slab and add a 5 kilo weight to the back of the neck when sleeping, for about 6 months depending on the density of one’s bone calcium. After this time the forehead will be noticeably flatter, thus providing a flat surface for a nailed picture hook or 3M removable sticker hook(don’t attempt if you are a heavy sweater). Affixed upside down the picture hook will easily hold one’s helmet in the correct frontward direction, as it should be at all times for obvious safety reasons. There is no excuse for not wearing a helmet in the proper fashion.[/quote]
An ingenious proposal. However, preliminary accelerated tests using a hydraulic press indicate that, in our hands, the requisite forehead flattening has adverse aerodynamic effects, increasing the air resistance to forward motion, which is incompatible with the improved fuel economy which is our primary goal here.
On the other hand there are indications that the rigid mounting of the helmet and the development of stronger neck muscles might allow the helmet peak to be used as an anthropometrically adjustable spoiler, permitting, for example, aerodynamically assisted wheelies, or, alternatively, increased downforce for improved roadholding and braking.
In high wind conditions, such as typhoons, stationary wheelies might be possible without the use of the engine. Since it is well known that wheelie execution is the main motivation for owning and operating a 2 wheeled vehicle, such a capability would significantly enhance both road safety and fuel economy. Perhaps your illustrious predecessor, Dr Werner Von Braun, was not entirely correct in his well known assertion that “There is no such thing as a free launch”
That’s all very well - but muscle is denser …i.e. heavier… that the normal, pre-existing “fat neck” and so the weight increases. This offsets the gain - thus increasing friction and thereby decreasing the overall efficiency of the system. Studies continue on creating the stealth peak helmet design that provides an increase in aerodynamic efficiency without the increase in muscle mass. Options, in Hsin Tien at least, include “Elephant Trunk” air guides to provide lift - thus negating the impact of helmet weight…a circumspect approach to say the least.
May I point out a slip in the practical science of these here theories however in laymen’s terms? Whether a fat neck or a muscle clad neck, the overall range of motion of the neck will be considerably less than a thinner, sleeker neck would be capable of. A limited range of motion therefore would severely limit any adjustment to the angle of a helmet peak. This will have detrimental effect on the helmet and head’s ability to provide a suitable and practical downforce angle at lower speed, assuming the bike is up to a standard 125cc range. This means that any additional weight gain on the neck must be accounted for by an increase in the bike engine’s cubic capacity. Simply put, the slower the bike, the more helmet rake required, the faster a bike, the less rake required.
Again in laymen’s terms compare your neck type and physique to those below to find your suitable CC requirements.
