Daftest stuff said on PH which isn't really true
Discussion
This thread is about stuff that gets said regularly on PH as if the poster thinks its an undeniable truth. When in reality when you think about it there is little sense in it
I nominate "something is worth what someone is prepared to pay for it."
Its been said on numerous watch threads when people comment on the price an expensive watch. Its been used a few times on the Ferrari GTO thread that's currently running, and almost always appears on any thread to do with the sale of paintings, and multiple times in past threads. People use the phase as if its an unassailable fact.
But is it? When I think about it the phase seems to be one of the daftest things its possible to say.
Personally I've just bought a bicycle brand new for 2.5K. Its probably worth half that when its delivered to my front door and worth even less the minute I ride it. Nothing has actually changed on the bike throughout that time, its still the same bike it was in the showroom. The truth is that was only worth that price to me at the time I bought it and I wouldn't expect anyone else to buy it off me for the same price even if it was still in its wrapping.
Take any auction. If I was completely bonkers and went into an auction I saw some beaten up mini rusted through being pushed onto the stage with a guide price of £200 and I immediately bid £10K its doesn't make the car worth that because I paid that money for it.
There are probably many other examples where probably only two or three people i the world would regarding something as having a high value when the rest of the world would call them crazy. And the thing I hate most about the saying is it assumes if a few people are being nutters we all have to regard what they are doing as valid and sensible.
I nominate "something is worth what someone is prepared to pay for it."
Its been said on numerous watch threads when people comment on the price an expensive watch. Its been used a few times on the Ferrari GTO thread that's currently running, and almost always appears on any thread to do with the sale of paintings, and multiple times in past threads. People use the phase as if its an unassailable fact.
But is it? When I think about it the phase seems to be one of the daftest things its possible to say.
Personally I've just bought a bicycle brand new for 2.5K. Its probably worth half that when its delivered to my front door and worth even less the minute I ride it. Nothing has actually changed on the bike throughout that time, its still the same bike it was in the showroom. The truth is that was only worth that price to me at the time I bought it and I wouldn't expect anyone else to buy it off me for the same price even if it was still in its wrapping.
Take any auction. If I was completely bonkers and went into an auction I saw some beaten up mini rusted through being pushed onto the stage with a guide price of £200 and I immediately bid £10K its doesn't make the car worth that because I paid that money for it.
There are probably many other examples where probably only two or three people i the world would regarding something as having a high value when the rest of the world would call them crazy. And the thing I hate most about the saying is it assumes if a few people are being nutters we all have to regard what they are doing as valid and sensible.
Wills2 said:
My irony meter just exploded, this has to be peak PH, to start a thread about things that Pher's believe are true but aren't with one of the most inalienable facts of life.
I guess its predictable that when you question one of the inalienable facts posted on piston heads and actually say it in your starting post, you will get someone come back and say its inalienable. I think the two of us could start a small perpetual motion event here unless one of us wants to post something unpredictable?.
Robertb said:
Interesting question, but I think the statement is true. Its entirely a question of opinion.
Your £2,500 bike to a non-enthusiast would seem a ridiculous sum, when you could buy a perfectly good bike from Decathlon for £250. Indeed, were you to ride the two bikes, I bet you would be only fractionally faster on your fancy bike. The non-enthusiast would regard you as a nutter.
You are prepared to pay £2500 for the bike so its absolutely worth what you are prepared to pay. Similarly, if you'd looked online and found your bike for sale second hand for £2500 would you have bought it? If you saw it advertised at two shops, for £2,500 and £3,000 which one would you buy?
So whats it worth? All together now... "what someone is prepared to pay for it"
Your £2,500 bike to a non-enthusiast would seem a ridiculous sum, when you could buy a perfectly good bike from Decathlon for £250. Indeed, were you to ride the two bikes, I bet you would be only fractionally faster on your fancy bike. The non-enthusiast would regard you as a nutter.
You are prepared to pay £2500 for the bike so its absolutely worth what you are prepared to pay. Similarly, if you'd looked online and found your bike for sale second hand for £2500 would you have bought it? If you saw it advertised at two shops, for £2,500 and £3,000 which one would you buy?
So whats it worth? All together now... "what someone is prepared to pay for it"
Oh I'm gonna be substantially faster on the new bike being as it has an electric motor... Edited by julian64 on Wednesday 15th November 16:29
mikey_b said:
Caddyshack said:
Many racers do slide but the counter steer term
In the motorbike world is about pushing the handle bar the way you want to turn, be it slow or fast speed manoeuvres.
When you want to turn from the straight ahead you push the bar and the bike flips in to the bend…it’s a weird concept but it isn’t to do with correcting a slide or making a car go sideways so it causes confusion.
You push the inside handlebar slightly - so if it's a left turn, you nudge gently forwards on the left bar grip. This of course twists the handlebars, and with it the front wheel, slightly to the right, but the bike then drops down leftwards and turns that way. Hence the term 'counter' steering.In the motorbike world is about pushing the handle bar the way you want to turn, be it slow or fast speed manoeuvres.
When you want to turn from the straight ahead you push the bar and the bike flips in to the bend…it’s a weird concept but it isn’t to do with correcting a slide or making a car go sideways so it causes confusion.
It works because the only thing in contact with the road is the very bottom of the tyres. If you turn the bars slightly to the right, then the grip on the road causes the bike to initially steer that way, but because of inertia from the mass of the bike and rider, the rest of the bike tries to stay where it is - so effectively you pull the bottom of the bike out to the right, and gravity means the bike starts leaning to the left. Once leaning left, the geometry of the steering system means the bars are then pulled to the left and the front tyre leads the bike around the corner turned the way you'd expect. So, a quick and gentle nudge on the 'wrong' side of the bars causes it to drop down and turn towards that side. It's an extremely effective way of initiating a turn.
If you look down at a motorcycles steering from the top, you'll notice that the two fork tubes are set forwards of the headstock, which is where they attach to the front of the frame. This means that if you follow the line of the forks downwards, the point at which that line hits the ground is slightly ahead of the lowest point of the tyre. This distance, called the trail, is what forces the steering to turn left when leaning the bike to the left. The more trail the greater the effect, and is one of the most fundamental parts of the geometry of a bike frame and suspension. You see the same on a bicycle, without front suspension there is a forwards curve in the front forks which serves the same purpose, and if there is front suspension you'll see the top forms a sort of shallow triangle.
I tended to spend my early years riding a bicycle with no hands on the handlebars. I have a photo of riding to school on a claud butler gan sport while reading a book. No one can tell me that to initiate a turn on the bike I had to push the opposite handlebar, or that the bike was incapable of making its way into a corner without the handlebar imperceptibly making an opposite move then moving in the direction to take the corner by itself.
I do think on a motorcycle especially while pushing on you can initiate a much faster turn by pushing on the opposite handlebar because it forces the bike to fall into the turn and you naturally correct that, so a quick push on the inside handlebar is good for that, but you do have to realise you are destabilising the bike into a corner and its not the thing to do while on the edge of traction.
When I was teaching my sons to ride bikes the instructor told them to do it on every turn and they came to me to protest that it didn't feel right. I told them to ignore the instructor and do what felt natural.
I think the that counter steering has a place, but if it is part of the physics of making a turn then it doesn't need to be taught as a conscious movement, and certainly not lauded as seems to be the current fashion IMHO.
Caddyshack said:
I had my first motorbike at age 10 (TY80), I had a road bike from 16 then a 125 at 17 then found cars...I kept dipping in and out with 125's for green laning, motorcross and then CBT 125's. It was only in my later years on a MITO with 30hp that I started to experiment with counter steer but then on my full bike test in my 40's I was taught to always use counter steer and I did find it to be a bit of a revelation as I had previously found it hard to make the bike turn. My riding style now on sports 600 is to countersteer.
Yep its definitely the fashionable thing currently. I've always been on litre sports bikes since the minute I could afford them in the eighties. just like the riding position. Used to object to steering dampers until they became ubiquitous. I once remember an interview with barry sheene where he ridiculed people leaning off their bikes as showy, and talking about steering the bike around corners with his knees. both completely counter to what would be considered normal now. I guess with every age comes a new philosophy and a new confidence that the subjects been nailed. However I still think you do what seems to suit you after trying everythign suggested..
Mr Pointy said:
julian64 said:
I have to admit I tend to disagree with the idea of counter steering, especially when directed at new riders. I think the truth is that the physics of riding a bicycle or motorcycle aren't well understood, and not just by me. If you look at places like the Californian bike school they are treat it like a revelation, and have a demo of a bike showing a curve is impossible without it, but it is quite contrived.
I don't know about contrived but this video demonstrates that if you can't steer to the left, you can't turn right:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cNmUNHSBac
The only thing the video demonstrates is that the posters of the video have designed a particularly poor experiment to look at the problem.
Go back to my previous comments about when you were a kid and steered your bike with no hands on the handlebars. How did the bike do the job of going around a corner with no handlebar input?
look at this video from 1:20 on
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo...
Explain how the bike steers using only the saddle, and then goes on to ride the bike using only the saddle If countersteering input is required for a corner then there is either some very evil physics going on that when you tilt the bike saddle it first moves the steering counterintuitively without out human input (making a couscous decision to use countersteering irrelevant) or it isn't a thing at all.
RizzoTheRat said:
julian64 said:
Explain how the bike steers using only the saddle, and then goes on to ride the bike using only the saddle If countersteering input is required for a corner then there is either some very evil physics going on that when you tilt the bike saddle it first moves the steering counterintuitively without out human input (making a couscous decision to use countersteering irrelevant) or it isn't a thing at all.
Leaning the bike is what's needed to go round a corner. When riding a bicycle with no hands you can achieve this easily enough by effectively sticking your bum out a bit to one side, your center of mass stays in the same place but you angle the bike slightly by moving the top of the bike in the direction of the turn. Counter steering tilts the bike by moving the bottom of the bike away from the direction of the turn. On my 15kg bicycle it's easy to steer it by moving my 95ish kg a bit. On my 190kg motorbike bike it's a lot less effective.There's nothing complicated about the physics. Put a sheet of paper on the desk and stand a pencil on it. There's 2 ways to make the pencil fall to the left, push the top left or pull the paper right.
https://www.nature.com/articles/535338a
Everything about it is complicated....which is why we get a lot of opposing views over the years and when people tire of the complexity they turn to people who say they confidently know the answer, when of course the real answer is 'maybe'
RizzoTheRat said:
Mr Pointy said:
Are you saying that if you have one person in a car, say an Octavia, with no load & you brake from 70 to a stop & then you repeat it with four Samoan rugby players on board & luggage up to the maximum vehicle weight limit that it will stop in the same distance?
An oddly specific question, I'm guessing you have an Octavia/ Do you also have 4 Samoan reuby players, a private road, and a long tape measure? 
In theory, yes, but this assumes you're achieving maximum braking force by being right at the limit of traction for the entire duration of the braking. In reality I suspect few people could achieve that and it will take slightly longer to stop, but nowhere near as much further as you'd expect.
I think this is the automotive equivalent of the Monty Hall problem, ie so counter intuitive many will refuse to believe it
I refuse to believe it. 
Although I will think a bit harder in future about using the HGV in front of my motorcycle as a wind brake.
d and it would be impolite.Biker's Nemesis said:
RizzoTheRat said:
Long travel suspension set up for road riding not track (TDM900), and an addiction to cheese Sports bikes are set up with hard braking in mind, mines set up for bumpy roads and can keep both wheels on the ground on roads that will throw a sports bike all over the place.
But! Sports bikes are set up with hard braking in mind, mines set up for bumpy roads and can keep both wheels on the ground on roads that will throw a sports bike all over the place.If when you're braking hard with your forks bottomed out and then hit a bump or bumps you will lock the front wheel which will result in most cases in (1) a loss of control or releasing the brakes, see (1)
I remember back in the early 90's I had a FZR 600 which also had very soft springs as standard, my fix for this were a higher viscosity for oil with 5 mill extra, stainless washers (6 rings a bell) with a bolt and nyloc nut on top of the fork springs.
These modifications were not based on anything other than a thought in my head.
I've ridden a few TDM's over the years and not noticed the same problems I had with the early FZR's
This was when Mortgage and a new born were higher priorities than a fork job.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff