On 2024-11-11 18:27, Andrews wrote:
> Your Name wrote on Tue, 12 Nov 2024 10:12:52 +1300 :
>
>>> Bimmer is the slang for BMW's automobiles;
>>> Beemer is the slang for BMW's motorcycles.
>>
>> Doesn't work. Many people call the cars "Beemers".
>
> Just like nobody who owns a motorcycle "drives" it, anyone calling their
> car a "beamer" is instantly recognizable as a poser who knows nothing.
>
> Which was my point that Alan G. Baker claimed to own a bimmer and to teach
> racing and yet he doesn't know the very first thing about either topic.
I only "claim" it, because:

I do--in fact--own a 2012 BMW 135i,

and I do--in fact--teach road racing as well as race a 1998 Van Diemen
RF98-2 Formula F Honda.

:-)

On 11/11/24 10:01 PM, RoadRacer wrote:
> On 2024-11-11 18:46, Andrews wrote:
>> Jolly Roger wrote on 12 Nov 2024 01:36:27 GMT :
>>
>>> Which slang to use isn't anywhere near a high priority for normal
>>> people. And the only reason Arlen mentions it is to belittle people he
>>> dislikes..

Yup. I've seen similar 'gotcha' attempts by gun nutz over terminology too.

Of course they don't see outside of their little niche that those with
equally deep but broader experience means that one's trivial knowledge
includes different niche definitions of the same term. In such
situations, the solution is to ignore the niche pedantry attempts.

>> The point of bringing up the catenary or bimmer is that you Apple trolls
>> don't know anything about anything - which is a trait you all possess.
>
> And my point is that you know nothing about racing, because not a SINGLE
> experienced racing driver I've ever known has ever mentioned the
> catenary curve as being in any way related to the fastest line through a
> corner.

For motorsports, I've watched at least hundreds of races, and during all
those decades, I've never heard any NASCAR/Indy/F1/etc race announcers
ever mention the word "catenary" ...

.... let alone used it in the alleged context herein of guidance for
optimizing the line in a corner to minimize peak cornering forces.

But I'm sure that Arlen can provide multiple youtube clips of TV
broadcasts, with timestamps which show that I'm not misremembering.

-hh

On 2024-11-12 11:15, -hh wrote:
> On 11/11/24 10:01 PM, RoadRacer wrote:
>> On 2024-11-11 18:46, Andrews wrote:
>>> Jolly Roger wrote on 12 Nov 2024 01:36:27 GMT :
>>>
>>>> Which slang to use isn't anywhere near a high priority for normal
>>>> people. And the only reason Arlen mentions it is to belittle people he
>>>> dislikes..
>
> Yup. I've seen similar 'gotcha' attempts by gun nutz over terminology too.
>
> Of course they don't see outside of their little niche that those with
> equally deep but broader experience means that one's trivial knowledge
> includes different niche definitions of the same term.  In such
> situations, the solution is to ignore the niche pedantry attempts.
>
>
>>> The point of bringing up the catenary or bimmer is that you Apple trolls
>>> don't know anything about anything - which is a trait you all possess.
>>
>> And my point is that you know nothing about racing, because not a
>> SINGLE experienced racing driver I've ever known has ever mentioned
>> the catenary curve as being in any way related to the fastest line
>> through a corner.
>
> For motorsports, I've watched at least hundreds of races, and during all
> those decades, I've never heard any NASCAR/Indy/F1/etc race announcers
> ever mention the word "catenary" ...
>
> ... let alone used it in the alleged context herein of guidance for
> optimizing the line in a corner to minimize peak cornering forces.
>
> But I'm sure that Arlen can provide multiple youtube clips of TV
> broadcasts, with timestamps which show that I'm not misremembering.
He finally found his one reference...

....and it's about wooden toy cars running down a ramp!

-hh wrote on Tue, 12 Nov 2024 14:15:44 -0500 :

> I've never heard any NASCAR/Indy/F1/etc race announcers> ever mention the word "catenary" ...
>
> ... let alone used it in the alleged context herein of guidance for
> optimizing the line in a corner to minimize peak cornering forces.

Had any of you uneducated Apple trolls taken even a single class in
Physics, you'd know centripedal/centrifugal forces exist in the X plane.

On 2024-11-12 20:57, Andrews wrote:
> -hh wrote on Tue, 12 Nov 2024 14:15:44 -0500 :
>
>> I've never heard any NASCAR/Indy/F1/etc race announcers> ever mention the word "catenary" ...
>>
>> ... let alone used it in the alleged context herein of guidance for
>> optimizing the line in a corner to minimize peak cornering forces.
>
> Had any of you uneducated Apple trolls taken even a single class in
> Physics, you'd know centripedal/centrifugal forces exist in the X plane.

Everyone knows that, doofus.

And it's "centripetal" force. With a "T".

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2024-11-12 20:57, Andrews wrote:
>> -hh wrote on Tue, 12 Nov 2024 14:15:44 -0500 :
>>
>>> I've never heard any NASCAR/Indy/F1/etc race announcers> ever mention
>>> the word "catenary" ...
>>>
>>> ... let alone used it in the alleged context herein of guidance for
>>> optimizing the line in a corner to minimize peak cornering forces.
>>
>> Had any of you uneducated Apple trolls taken even a single class in
>> Physics, you'd know centripedal/centrifugal forces exist in the X plane.
>
> Everyone knows that, doofus.
>
> And it's "centripetal" force. With a "T".
>

And why the sudden change by Arlen to centripetal forces, when his claims
have used catenary?

Maybe because he’s not found any TV video of race announcers using the
term?
Nah … too quick of a reply for that: he’s either profoundly lazy or
he knows he’s lying.

-hh

On 2024-11-13 05:10, -hh wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>> On 2024-11-12 20:57, Andrews wrote:
>>> -hh wrote on Tue, 12 Nov 2024 14:15:44 -0500 :
>>>
>>>> I've never heard any NASCAR/Indy/F1/etc race announcers> ever mention
>>>> the word "catenary" ...
>>>>
>>>> ... let alone used it in the alleged context herein of guidance for
>>>> optimizing the line in a corner to minimize peak cornering forces.
>>>
>>> Had any of you uneducated Apple trolls taken even a single class in
>>> Physics, you'd know centripedal/centrifugal forces exist in the X plane.
>>
>> Everyone knows that, doofus.
>>
>> And it's "centripetal" force. With a "T".
>>
>
> And why the sudden change by Arlen to centripetal forces, when his claims
> have used catenary?
>
> Maybe because he’s not found any TV video of race announcers using the
> term?
> Nah … too quick of a reply for that: he’s either profoundly lazy or
> he knows he’s lying.
I think he's the type who's convinced of his own intelligence, but who
actually isn't very bright.

He once saw someone (somewhere) use the word "catenary" in relation to
cars negotiating a curve...

(For all we know, it really was the website with talking about wooden
toy cars)

....and like so many, he just let that become the only "thought" he ever
had about it.

BTW, I can show pretty conclusively that during the phase from turn-in
to the "middle" of the corner, and assuming that braking and lateral
forces are equal (i.e. the "friction circle" IS a circle in the braking
hemisphere), then the ideal line through a corner is a parabola; at
least for any corner of 90 degrees or less.

I can also show that that beyond 90 degrees, there will be a segment in
the middle (once you're completely off the brakes) which is purely on a
circular arc.

The actual shape of the "exit" half of a corner (from the point where
you slowly start to apply throttle) is much harder to calculate, because
the "hemisphere" of the friction circle... ...isn't a hemisphere at all
times.

-hh wrote on Wed, 13 Nov 2024 08:10:15 -0500 :

> And why the sudden change to centripetal forces, when his claims
> have used catenary?

A catenary can be in any direction, horizontal or vertical, "hh".

It's not the *direction* that defines the catenary but the uniformity of
force over length - which - you'd have known if you had ever taken physics.

My point is that the Apple trolls know nothing about anything, where one of
the Apple trolls claims to "teach racing" yet he knows nothing of physics.

They claim to get paid to help people with computers and yet they insist
for weeks that the nntp header is impossible to change on your own.

Who is that stupid?

They claim to know bimmers and yet they don't even know what they're
called, always my point being they are all on top of Mount Stupid.

Their whole lives they're told they're stupid from everyone but Apple.
Apple loves them.

Apple tells these Apple trolls that they're geniuses for standing in long
lines overnight at the Apple store waiting for new products to purchase.

For that, these genius Apple trolls defend everything Apple to the death.

On 2024-11-13 13:15, Andrews wrote:
> -hh wrote on Wed, 13 Nov 2024 08:10:15 -0500 :
>
>> And why the sudden change to centripetal forces, when his claims
>> have used catenary?
>
> A catenary can be in any direction, horizontal or vertical, "hh".

No one here doesn't understand that, doofus.

>
> It's not the *direction* that defines the catenary but the uniformity of
> force over length - which - you'd have known if you had ever taken physics.

The forces are NOT uniform, doofus.

The ends of a catenary (in the typical, vertical form) have to support
the weight of all of the chain or rope located beneath them; a force
which diminishes as you approach the bottom of the curve.

>
> My point is that the Apple trolls know nothing about anything, where one of
> the Apple trolls claims to "teach racing" yet he knows nothing of physics.

There is no one aside from you who doubts that I teach racing, doofus.

Again, here are my credentials:

<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K_iC3Vtkp5gP36T4lBZFc7rAkmzQ7x9u/view?usp=share_link>

>
> They claim to get paid to help people with computers and yet they insist
> for weeks that the nntp header is impossible to change on your own.

No once insisted that, doofus.

>
> Who is that stupid?
>
> They claim to know bimmers and yet they don't even know what they're
> called, always my point being they are all on top of Mount Stupid.

Not knowing that there is a difference between "bimmer" and "beemer"
doesn't disqualify one from actually owning a 2012 BMW 135i M Sport:

<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RksO8IIHEzap0YkYbkLNReU2zKc5WhLw/view?usp=share_link>

On 11/13/24 4:15 PM, Andrews wrote:
> -hh wrote on Wed, 13 Nov 2024 08:10:15 -0500 :
>
>> And why the sudden change to centripetal forces, when his claims
>> have used catenary?
>
> A catenary can be in any direction, horizontal or vertical, "hh".

Pedantically, sure ...

> It's not the *direction* that defines the catenary but the uniformity of
> force over length - which - you'd have known if you had ever taken physics.

....but pragmatically, the reason why catenary doesn't apply to laeral
non-gravitational based forces is because it is difficult for them to be
sufficiently homogeneous: this theoretical doesn'tpragmatically occur in
reality.

Case in point, if this factor really was as significant as you're trying
to imply that it is, then the real world ramifications are that during
races, there would *never* able to be any passing in corners.

> My point is that the Apple trolls know nothing about anything, where one of
> the Apple trolls claims to "teach racing" yet he knows nothing of physics.

But they're not who needs to think things through more completely,
particularly in looking at theory vs applied.

> [more reams of butthurt whining ... snipped]

-hh

On 2024-11-14 12:20, -hh wrote:
> On 11/13/24 4:15 PM, Andrews wrote:
>> -hh wrote on Wed, 13 Nov 2024 08:10:15 -0500 :
>>
>>> And why the sudden change to centripetal forces, when his claims
>>> have used catenary?
>>
>> A catenary can be in any direction, horizontal or vertical, "hh".
>
> Pedantically, sure ...
>
>> It's not the *direction* that defines the catenary but the uniformity of
>> force over length - which - you'd have known if you had ever taken
>> physics.
>
> ...but pragmatically, the reason why catenary doesn't apply to laeral
> non-gravitational based forces is because it is difficult for them to be
> sufficiently homogeneous: this theoretical doesn'tpragmatically occur in
> reality.
>
> Case in point, if this factor really was as significant as you're trying
> to imply that it is, then the real world ramifications are that during
> races, there would *never* able to be any passing in corners.

And he's simply wrong.

The forces in rope/chain/etc. hanging between points (i.e. in a catenary
curve) is most definitely NOT uniform.

The the ends of rope/chain/etc. need to support the weight of all the
material that hangs below, whereas the middle of the hanging whatever
doesn't.

(If he hadn't hidden himself away from me, I could easily write him a
thought experiment by steps, where I could absolutely prove that fact so
completely that he'd have to agree or shut his eyes to truth.

Little Arlen is probably remembering what he was taught in high school
physics where they say that the tension in an idealized rope
(/chain/etc.) is the same everywhere *

* and where there's probably a footnote that says "ignoring the weight
of rope itself".

Guys like him hear/read the first explanation of such phenomena they're
give and never are able to move beyond it.

:-)