car's trajectory

[Androcles]

|
| Your reply clearly indicates you are fucking stupid.
| Ask your keeper to put you back in your padded cell.
| ____________________________________________
|
|
| I do not see any math. Bring the math, not some
| book of engineering/mechanics tables. Show us the
| math or go away. Your response is obviously deficit.
| _____________________________________________
|
| You may have meant "deficient". If the explanation
| of vehicle steering geometry design was deficient in
| clarity, I can gladly provide a detailed mathematical
| analysis for your complete satisfaction. Please
| identify the type and rigor of the analysis you need.
|
| When you say "show us", I hope "us" does not include
| the person above who makes the obscene posts.
|
| Thank you for your continued interest in learning.
|
| Rodan.
|

Actually I wrote:

\quote
See this first:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Steering.gif
\unquote


Got it yet, fuckhead, or is your head still up your arse?

 

[Rodan]

Your reply clearly indicates you are fucking stupid.
Ask your keeper to put you back in your padded cell.
____________________________________________


Got it yet, fuckhead, or is your head still up your arse?
____________________________________________

The actor in the Harry Potter series has matured. You
can easily follow his example. Improve your vocabulary
until you are permitted to join adult conversations. You
are more likely to earn the respect of intelligent people
when your speech is free of name-calling and profanity.

Rodan.

 

[Androcles]

|
| Your reply clearly indicates you are fucking stupid.
| Ask your keeper to put you back in your padded cell.
| ____________________________________________
|
|
| Got it yet, fuckhead, or is your head still up your arse?
| ____________________________________________
|
| The actor in the Harry Potter series has matured. You
| can easily follow his example. Improve your vocabulary
| until you are permitted to join adult conversations. You
| are more likely to earn the respect of intelligent people
| when your speech is free of name-calling and profanity.
|
| Rodan.
Ok, it is very clear that you are embarrassed by your idiot
goof concerning a car's trajectory and wish to change the
subject. ****!
**** off.
*plonk*

--
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B)
where
A = (0,0,0,t)
A' =(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v) +x'/(c+v))
B = (x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
x' = x-vt

Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif

"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin [email protected]

Androcles

 

[Rodan]

Your reply clearly indicates you are fucking stupid.
Ask your keeper to put you back in your padded cell.
____________________________________________


Got it yet, fuckhead, or is your head still up your arse?
____________________________________________


It is clear you are embarrassed by your idiot goof
concerning a car's trajectory. ****! **** off.
____________________________________________

The actor in the Harry Potter series has matured. You
can easily follow his example. Improve your vocabulary
until you are permitted to join adult conversations. You
are more likely to earn the respect of intelligent people
when your speech is free of name-calling and profanity.

Rodan.

 

[krw]

How is this supposed to be parsed?
A: "fixed everything that balincing didn't", ^
B: "fixed everything, balancing didn't."

Yes. A + B. Fixed the high-speed shimmy. Balancing didn't. No
need to search further for worn front-end parts.

They're almost opposites, you see.

Didn't fix everything. You're still a loon.

 

[krw]

Your response is so obviously deficit. Put up the math or shut up.

You *have* to be the densest substance since Dimbulb. It's not
math, stupid. Start with reading comprehension and in a decade or
so your public schools might offer you a course in geometry.

 

[JosephKK]

You *have* to be the densest substance since Dimbulb. It's not
math, stupid. Start with reading comprehension and in a decade or
so your public schools might offer you a course in geometry.

Geometry is part of math as trigonometry. Or did they forget to tell
you that? Like i said, put it up or shut up, whichever name you call
it by.

 

[JosephKK]

At least THREE different people have posted links to diagrams that show
how steering geometry works in the idealized case, and I (among others)
have explained that the real-world case works a little better in a
modified version where some deliberate tire-scrub is introduced to
account for the fact that weight transfers to different tires during
cornering.

Now, if you can't understand it- go do some reading on your own to fill
in the gaps in your understanding. Its not hidden knowledge, you just
have to look it up. On the other hand if you are simply choosing not to
believe us, its no skin off my nose when someone else makes a deliberate
choice to remain ignorant.


Here, I'll even do the "hard" work (typing "ackerman steering" into
google- I think I need a nap after that exertion) and give you a few
sites to start with:

http://www.smithees-racetech.com.au/ackerman.html
http://www.auto-ware.com/setup/ack_rac.htm

First, you did not read the first site. There is no math (including
geometry). Plus it discusses anti-Ackerman steering and over 100 %
Ackerman and less that 100 % Ackerman. It also brings up
toe-in/toe-out, which i had previously neglected.

The second site has a pretty diagram and no discussion beyond some
vague assumption that Ackerman steering is vaguely "a good thing".

Bring the math, the real math, the whole math and explanation with the
math.

 

[JosephKK]

Your reply clearly indicates you are fucking stupid.
Ask your keeper to put you back in your padded cell.
____________________________________________


I do not see any math. Bring the math, not some
book of engineering/mechanics tables. Show us the
math or go away. Your response is obviously deficit.
_____________________________________________

You may have meant "deficient". If the explanation
of vehicle steering geometry design was deficient in
clarity, I can gladly provide a detailed mathematical
analysis for your complete satisfaction. Please
identify the type and rigor of the analysis you need.

When you say "show us", I hope "us" does not include
the person above who makes the obscene posts.

Thank you for your continued interest in learning.

Rodan.

Please set up cases of about 100 % Ackerman, about 50% Ackerman, and
about 25 % anti-Ackerman. Cross this with 5 various steering angles,
various tire slips, and show/compute the position from above of all
arms and the position of the steering wheel. Show how percent
Ackerman and toe-in/toe-out varies with the various steering angles,
etc.,. You may include side loading effects. Show all dimensions and
state tire properties. Please give a link 'cause that much binary is
unlikely to be allowed on many of these text only groups.

 

[JosephKK]

Your reply clearly indicates you are fucking stupid.
Ask your keeper to put you back in your padded cell.
____________________________________________


Got it yet, fuckhead, or is your head still up your arse?
____________________________________________

The actor in the Harry Potter series has matured. You
can easily follow his example. Improve your vocabulary
until you are permitted to join adult conversations. You
are more likely to earn the respect of intelligent people
when your speech is free of name-calling and profanity.

Rodan.

Oh, you are talking about dimbulb and its sock puppets. Definitely
not one of "us". I tried riding it about the profanity, but it just
got worse. I normally do not see the spew.

 

[Rodan]

Please set up cases of about 100 % Ackerman, about 50% Ackerman,
and about 25 % anti-Ackerman. Cross this with 5 various steering
angles, various tire slips, and show/compute the position from above
of all arms and the position of the steering wheel. Show how percent
Ackerman and toe-in/toe-out varies with the various steering angles,
etc.,. You may include side loading effects. Show all dimensions and
state tire properties. Please give a link because that much binary is
unlikely to be allowed on many of these text-only groups.
_________________________________________________________

I think I see what you are getting at. I'll start with some links first:

http://www.auto-ware.com/setup/ack_rac.htm

http://www.rctek.com/handling/ackerman_steering_principle.html

These links show you the same simple explanation posted in this newsgroup,
plus the same simple diagram of the geometry, showing the reason for having
a common center of rotation for all vehicle axles. It is simple geometry,
commonly known as the Ackerman Concept. No math is involved.

The articles also discuss racing cars, where tire distortion and slippage during
high-G turns cause a car's turning radius center to shift from its normal position.
Race car builders modify the geometry to compensate for the drift by varying
the angle (Ackerman angle) between the non-parallel bars of the 4-bar steering
linkage. The car is test-raced with a series of candidate angles until the best
turning control is obtained. Modifications must be done empirically based on
the dynamics of the race car and the track. No math is involved.

Now I understand the confusion. When the newsgroup discussed the simple
common center of rotation principle, you wanted to display your knowledge of
exceptions under racing environments. Some posters mistakenly thought you
were arguing against the Ackerman concept, but you were actually expanding
on it in all seriousness, and not trying to be a trolling pedantic nit.

Rodan.

 

[Rich Grise]

Didn't fix everything. You're still a loon.

From where do you get the compulsion to cast personal insults?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[N8N]

:

|
| You claimed that the tracks of the tires all pointed
| to a single point.  Put up the math (including the
| geometry), 'cause i do not think it can be done.
| __________________________________________
|
| It's not TRACKS.  It's AXLE centerlines that all meet at a single point.

Nonsense. When the car is travelling straight the axle centerlines
are parallel and therefore do not meet (by definition of parallel).

to elaborate, the centerline of the rear axle and the centerlines of
each front spindle all meet at a common point. As the vehicle travels
a path closer to straight ahead, that point becomes increasingly
distant from the vehicle itself, and when the vehicle is in actuality
traveling perfectly straight ahead, that point is infinitely far away.

nate

 

[N8N]

What math where?  I do not see any math.  Bring the math, if you can.
Not engineering / mechanics tables, the math (solid geometry and ODE
or better)

You clearly can't handle the math, since you're evidently incapable of
using a compass and straightedge.

nate

 

[N8N]

Please set up cases of about 100 % Ackerman, about 50% Ackerman, and
about 25 % anti-Ackerman.  Cross this with 5 various steering angles,
various tire slips, and show/compute the position from above of all
arms and the position of the steering wheel.  Show how percent
Ackerman  and toe-in/toe-out varies with the various steering angles,
etc.,.  You may include side loading effects.  Show all dimensions and
state tire properties.  Please give a link 'cause that much binary is
unlikely to be allowed on many of these text only groups.

I don't do homework assignments for random Usenet posters.

nate

 

[Androcles]

:

|
| You claimed that the tracks of the tires all pointed
| to a single point. Put up the math (including the
| geometry), 'cause i do not think it can be done.
| __________________________________________
|
| It's not TRACKS. It's AXLE centerlines that all meet at a single point.

Nonsense. When the car is travelling straight the axle centerlines
are parallel and therefore do not meet (by definition of parallel).

to elaborate, the centerline of the rear axle and the centerlines of
each front spindle all meet at a common point. As the vehicle travels
a path closer to straight ahead, that point becomes increasingly
distant from the vehicle itself, and when the vehicle is in actuality
traveling perfectly straight ahead, that point is infinitely far away.

nate

===============================================
The centerlines of each front spindle do NOT meet at a common point
shared by the rear axle except for one identifiable and particular turning
radius, as shown here:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Steering.gif

--
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B)
where
A = (0,0,0,t)
A' =(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v) +x'/(c+v))
B = (x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
x' = x-vt

Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif

"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin [email protected]
According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.
Androcles

 

[Rodan]

Sorry, I don't think he has a clue. He read the links I and others
posted, and then tossed out a few terms as if he understood them, and
asked that we "set up" explanations far far beyond the scope of this
thread, but with no real statement of WHAT he wants explained. Does he
want a graph of how lateral force on one tire out of the 4 changes as
you increase or decrease a parameter? Does he want to know how it
affects the feedback forces through the steering wheel to the driver?
(probably not, because you'd have to know scrub radius to even SWAG
that, and he never mentions it). Does he want to know how changing that
parameter relates to oversteer or understeer? He never says, probably he
doesn't even know enough about the physics to phrase a coherent question.

If he wasn't trying to be a trolling pedantic nit, he sure did a damn
fine job. I'd hate to see what he could do if he really tried....

___________________________________________________________

Every newsgroup has at least one guy so desperate to display his knowledge
that he challenges any statement made by the others in their conversations.
He charges that they are all ignorant of some aspect of the topic, and he
launches into a belligerent demand that they justify their remarks with some
scientific mathematical proof, throwing in a smattering of technical buzzwords
such as Kepler or Coriolis to intimidate sincere posters.

After throwing cold water on the converstion and flinging insults at those
who fall for the troll and try to help, he vanishes, like a smug graffiti vandal.

I apologize for the way he discarded the knowledgeable efforts to answer his
objections. Nothing you could have said, not even writing the textbook he
demanded, would have satisfied him. Please don't be discouraged from
continuing to post here.

Best regards,

Rodan. <----- Still believes trolls can be rehabilitated.

 

[Nate Nagel]

to elaborate, the centerline of the rear axle and the centerlines of
each front spindle all meet at a common point. As the vehicle travels
a path closer to straight ahead, that point becomes increasingly
distant from the vehicle itself, and when the vehicle is in actuality
traveling perfectly straight ahead, that point is infinitely far away.

nate

===============================================
The centerlines of each front spindle do NOT meet at a common point
shared by the rear axle except for one identifiable and particular turning
radius, as shown here:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Steering.gif

In a 100% Ackermann geometry system, they do - at ALL turning radii.
I'm not sure what the heck your diagram is supposed to show, but it
appears to be a car that changes between cornering correctly and
scrubbing the hell out of the tires.

nate

 

[Nate Nagel]

In a 100% Ackermann geometry system, they do - at ALL turning radii. I'm
not sure what the heck your diagram is supposed to show, but it appears
to be a car that changes between cornering correctly and scrubbing the
hell out of the tires.

nate

http://www.rolls-royce.com/vroom/engineering/steering.htm

 

[Androcles]

| Androcles wrote:
| >
| >
| >>
| >>"JosephKK" wrote:
| >>
| >>|
| >>| You claimed that the tracks of the tires all pointed
| >>| to a single point. Put up the math (including the
| >>| geometry), 'cause i do not think it can be done.
| >>| __________________________________________
| >>|
| >>| It's not TRACKS. It's AXLE centerlines that all meet at a single
point.
| >>
| >>Nonsense. When the car is travelling straight the axle centerlines
| >>are parallel and therefore do not meet (by definition of parallel).
| >
| >
| > to elaborate, the centerline of the rear axle and the centerlines of
| > each front spindle all meet at a common point. As the vehicle travels
| > a path closer to straight ahead, that point becomes increasingly
| > distant from the vehicle itself, and when the vehicle is in actuality
| > traveling perfectly straight ahead, that point is infinitely far away.
| >
| > nate
| >
| > ===============================================
| > The centerlines of each front spindle do NOT meet at a common point
| > shared by the rear axle except for one identifiable and particular
turning
| > radius, as shown here:
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Steering.gif
| >
|
| In a 100% Ackermann geometry system, they do - at ALL turning radii.

When the car is travelling straight the axle centerlines are parallel and
therefore do NOT meet (by DEFINITION of parallel).

Your argument fails because infinity is not defined, try dividing by
zero on any calculator.


| I'm not sure what the heck your diagram is supposed to show,

Ok, so you are just another unintelligent argumentative fuckhead
I should not waste my time on.
*plonk*


--
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B)
where
A = (0,0,0,t)
A' =(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v) +x'/(c+v))
B = (x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
x' = x-vt

Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif

"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin [email protected]
According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.
Androcles