User talk:AndrewDressel/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about User:AndrewDressel. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Motorcycling Wikiproject

Welcome to the Motorcycling WikiProject. Hopefully you have a good time, start many new articles and can contribute lots to the existing ones as we need that. Cheers ww2censor 03:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You've been doing some good work on the Motorcycling WikiProject, IMO. Just wanted to say "Thanks!" --Pi3832 12:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais

Hello, An article that I created as a part of Wikiproject Cycling called Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais and linked to the Mount Tamalpais article, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais. Thank you, Bob in Las Vegas - uriel8 (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page Etiquette and a Request

Hey there, I figured you already knew this but I thought I'd give you a quick reminder. Regarding your edit here diff to the talk page at Mountain Bike. While moving the discussion was beneficial, generally correcting typo's and spelling mistakes of another user's post, even unsigned-in users, is frowned upon. People tend to view it as an insult. That said, i'd appreciate your help citing some sources at Cross-country cycling which is undersouced. Goodnightmush 16:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Bicycle

Hello Andrew, I have taken a look at the most recent references you added to the article bicycle. The are excellent references for much of the material. Unfortunatelly, I coudn't find, out of the 3 links, anything that mentions "carbon fiber" is the most popular non-metalic frame. Of course it is an "increasingly popular frame material"[1]. I will change the word "primary" to "popular." Perhaps, you could also place your references at various appropriate locations throughout the paragraph since having them all at the begining doesn't seem as relevant. Thank you! --CyclePat 17:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to your message on my user page. Please take note that there is strict policy regarding inclusion of material. Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources. Instead of trying to find counter exemples to this rule you may wish to try improve the sections of the article which you highlighted as lacking proper citations. --CyclePat 06:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Aviation WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to aviation.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPAVIATION Announcements}} there.
Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, and project-wide collaboration.
We have a number of child projects and task forces that focus on specific topics and aircraft types.
We're developing a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the experienced project members, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 13:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Swords

Crossing swords with M-72, eh? I have given up on that. May the force be with you. Good luck! Jeff dean 14:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Just trying to go about my day and make a positive contribution if I can. -AndrewDressel 16:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Handlebar help

Perhaps you can help me out. Not with M-72, but with getting the facts straight about motorcycle handlebars. I got into it because I've been working on the handlebar article which I believe the motorcycle article links to. I thought it would be simple to say that motorcycle handlebars attach to motorcycle forks, but perhaps not (see the unsuing discussion). I'll appreciate any input you can provide. -AndrewDressel 22:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't know how helpful I can be. I put together this PDF to sort out what feeble thoughts I have — http://jeff.dean.home.att.net/Triple-clamps.pdf

Clearly, the foot bone is connected to the knee bone ... etc. The handlebars are mounted to the triple clamp that, in turn, holds the top of the fork tubes.

In the case of the R1150RT, the handlebars actually are in two parts, and without the triple clamp they would fall apart. Both the RT and the GS are Telelever bikes, and both have triple clamps.

So the triple clamp appears to be the nexus that holds the whole front end together. The fork tubes are connected to the triple clamp, the triple clamp is connected to the head, the triple clamp carries the handlebar risers, the risers hold the bars (except here for the RT). You can almost sing it!

So the handlebars attach to the triple clamp (perhaps through risers, perhaps not) that, in turn, connects to the fork tubes.

Is that useful to you? Jeff dean 00:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Thanks. Hope my additions stick this time. -AndrewDressel 04:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I put the R50/2 photo on Wikipedia and inserted it in Motorcycle fork. If you want other photos uploaded, let me know. Jeff dean 04:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I see the Brewers lost one :( • By the way, might John Erdmann at BMW Motorcycles of Milwaukee be your dealer? Jeff dean 15:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Bought the bike back east. Haven't been to a dealer out here yes. -AndrewDressel 04:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics

I really like where the page is right now. I've seen it before where people had emphasized gyroscopic effect as the reason bikes are stable. The intro, "Experimentation and mathematical analysis have shown that a bike stays upright when it is steered to keep its center of mass over its wheels" is perfect, and the statement "the role of the gyroscopic effect in most bike designs is to help steer the front wheel into the direction of a lean" is a better explanation of gyroscopic effect. I'll likely restore my comparison to pogo sticks and ice-skating on one leg (which somebody removed) because they seem like perfect analogs to bike riding, yet there clearly is no gyroscopic effect. Your thoughts? Gekritzl

F.Y.I. → Citizendium

Because of the incredible amount of vandalism and the prevalence of anonymous users on Wikipedia, I am devoting more of my attention to the new, more controlled competitor, Citizendium, and less to Wikipedia.

It is not certain that Citizendium will survive and prosper, but I think it is worth the support of honest users of Wikipedia. If it does prosper, I will likely work with it exclusively in the future.

Jeff dean 17:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Bicycle brake systems

Yeah I agree, there really wasn't much point in those edits, just mostly minor rewording. I just corrected a couple of errors, but the section on sidepull and centrepull brakes are not very well written and could do with some improvements. What's really need is a pic of a centrepull brake, but unfortunately none of my bikes have them. LDHan 21:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics again

Hi. Was just going through assessments for cycling articles when I came across this article. I think it's really good - but I'm no expert :). I was thinking of nominating for Good Article status as a stepping stone to FA. Do you have the time to be able to help if and when improvements are suggested? My knowledge of this subject is limited to the article! I think this could be the first recognized cycling Featured Article in a fairly short time. Severo^TC 22:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice one! I thought it would need the formal procedure again and was going to copyedit tomorrow (when I have some time to do so!) and re-nom, but nevertheless, great work, thanks! Severo^TC 20:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent change to Bottom bracket article

Sorry, my mistake, I thought I was removing "THERE ARE IN 68 ,70, 73 mm.". I opened the edit page to make the change and by the time I saved it you had already done it, it's now fixed. LDHan 19:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, AndrewDressel! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Daniel 04:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

handlebar → bicycle handlebar

Hello, AndrewDressel. It appears that you copied and pasted handlebar to bicycle handlebar. Please do not move articles by copying and pasting them because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself using the move link at the top of the page, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you, Christopherlin 03:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC) (Cool, there's a template for this!)

Cranks vs crank arms

Yeah I know "crank arm/crankarm" is commonly used by cyclists and the cycle industry, but "crank" is not a short name and is the correct technical term, Jobst Brandt has written about this. Perhaps one or two sentences could be added to explain this. LDHan 00:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

http://yarchive.net/bike/jargon.html http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/1d36f3bec8c44c94/85e2a50c4d09c205?q=Straightening+a+bent+Dura+Ace+crank+arm&lnk=ol&hl=en&# http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.bicycles.misc/browse_thread/thread/c277f1a7ba1e62a3/61bbce25c1e72b19?lnk=st&q=help+bicycle+terminology&rnum=5&hl=en#61bbce25c1e72b19 I'm not too bothered whether if "crank" or "crankarm" is used in the article. LDHan 13:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sociable

I have just created a new article on the Sociable. Would you like to contribute? Jason7825 22:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wheelbase

Hi, Andrew. I've added a question on Talk:Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics. You seem to be an authority on the subject. Regards, LarRan 14:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposed: Twinshock → Suspension (motorcycle)

It has been proposed to merge the content of Twinshock into Suspension (motorcycle). Since you have previously edited one of these articles, I thought you might be interested. You're welcome to participate in the discussion if you like. --B. Wolterding 15:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Freewheeling Crankset Article

I certainly thought that the article made it clear that it was indeed a solutions in search of a problem. The system had several bugs including weight and safety, and in any case, was poorly implemented as well. As far as industry authority, I remember Sheldon Brown calling the system impractical, but he may or may not be considered "industry". I try to contribute where I can, but I often wonder why. Linns 02:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I understand that the article is a stub – but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be factually accurate, right? At any rate, Sheldon Brown refers to the FFS in his glossary (http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_e-f.html#ffs) as "a solution in search of a problem". Shall I add him as a source, or do you wish to? Linns 02:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Steering Discussion

Hi Andrew, I feel our recent discussion on the Talk:Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics page is getting a little lengthy and I have decided not to add any more on that thread for a while.

Thank you for your responses. They have given me new angles for which to prepare research and have convinced me that other mechanics besides countersteering are available and used in different situations of steering a bike. Yes, yes, I must provide reference. I'll do my best.

P.S. Regarding human and other mammalian body mechanics, explore how it is described by the Alexander Technique. Beware of some of the practitioners/websites, though, they may make it seem like some sort of magic. It is based in part on inhibiting the startle reflex and that "the head leads the body into action" and has been scientifically proven as a discovery and not an invention. I have lost the reference, much professional apologies.

-Until later, Earth to McFly (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I posted a short response on my talk page – to your post on my talk page. Earth to McFly (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Changes to Bicycle & Bicycle Performance

I don't quite understand what the problem was. Drag is quadratic in speed, so it increases linearly with speed. Power is cubic in the speed, so it would increase quadratically. The source says that the drag is $\rho AV^{2}$ , so when one speaks of the drag's increase with speed, not the drag itself, why is it not the derivative of that expression, i.e. the drag increases linearly with speed? Besselfunctions (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now I see. It appears to be just an issue of semantics, not mathematics. You are interpreting "is quadratic in" to be equivalent to "increases linearly with". However, the cited source, in discussing air drag explains that "the force exerted by the drag is seen to increase as the square of the velocity." The author does not use the derivative of the derived expression to describe how a change in velocity translates into a change in drag. Instead, he uses the original, quadratic relationship. For example: doubling speed results in a four fold increase in drag, even though the derivative of the drag with respect to velocity is proportional to the velocity and not its square. -AndrewDressel (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)