Daftest stuff said on PH which isn't really true

Daftest stuff said on PH which isn't really true

Author
Discussion

HughG

3,502 posts

236 months

Friday 17th November
quotequote all
vikingaero said:
Ambiwlans - Has dumbing down gone too far?
hehe

DickyC

48,588 posts

193 months

Friday 17th November
quotequote all
vikingaero said:
Ambiwlans - Has dumbing down gone too far?
nono

He suffered enough.

The tard.

Caddyshack

9,287 posts

201 months

Friday 17th November
quotequote all
Kermit power said:
Caddyshack said:
Cotty said:
Caddyshack said:
Zarco said:
Counter steering doesn't exist (when riding a motorcycle).
I think that is because counter steering in a car (we are in a car forum) is steering in to a skid / sliding whereas on a motorbike you do it to initiate a turn or to increase the steering input mid bend. Whilst you can steer in to a skid on a bike that is more off-roading as it has probably gone very wrong on the road if you have to do that and you are prob on the way to a high-side.
I don't have a lot of interest in bike but one thing sticks in my mid is that Valentino Rossi did used to slide his bikes in the wet and dry.
I just assumed it was mainly done on a race track or by some who has huge bike control otherwise you could end up high siding when it snaps back.
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.
That doesn't sound quite right!

Whether on a motorbike or a pushbike, at very slow speeds you'd turn the bars into the turn and the friction between the front tyre and the ground does the job of turning the bike in that direction.

At any higher speed, you'd turn the bars slightly away from the direction you want to steer, which causes you and the bike to lean into the turn, and the force on both tyres then takes you through the bend in the direction you're leaning, not the direction you're pointing the bars.

This is why you shouldn't teach kids to ride bikes with stabilisers. You can't lean a bike with stabilisers, so they always have to angle the bars into the turn and depend on the outside stabiliser keeping them from highsiding, meaning that once you remove the stabilisers they suddenly have to learn how to ride again with counter-steering.
We are probably getting in to semantics away from the real point which is that Countersteer in a car is used to correct a skid, on a motorbike it is used to start the turn / lean of the bike.


Even when doing 5-10mph on a bike you still counter steer to initiate a fast change of direction (as taught for Mod 1 on the test for the high speed lane change, the slow speed cone slalom and the turn in the road) - yes, if at walking pace you would turn the bars the way you want to go...but the POINT remains that the car term of counter steer is different to a bike counter steer and that is why people probably think counter steer on a bike is not real.

Nethybridge

507 posts

7 months

Yesterday (22:11)
quotequote all
8.1% of the Albanian population have appeared on the
popular daily TV quiz show Pasuritë Familjare. [ Family Fortunes ]

otolith

54,678 posts

199 months

Gerradi said:
surveyor said:
Has anyone hammered sausages into a front lawn?
Yes ,when 19 my sausage used to be regularly hammered into Sallys front lawn...
Was that before the fashion shifted to paved gardens?

otherman

2,177 posts

160 months

98elise said:
akirk said:
Tam_Mullen said:
essayer said:
The driving other cars entitlement on your insurance requires the other car to have insurance
That is exactly what my insurance wording says, I just checked it, are you saying its wrong? I had best let them know!
I suspect that it is the assumption that because it says it on one insurance certificate / policy it must therefore be true for all...
I have had insurance where it was a condition, and also insurance where it was not...
Exactly. It down to the individual policy rather than a blanket statement.
Find me a policy that doesn't have this exclusion then. If there is one, amazing. I buy a Ferrari and a Fiesta, insure the Fiesta, drive the Ferrari. Ain't no insurance company taking that risk on.

Johnspex

4,258 posts

179 months

otherman said:
98elise said:
akirk said:
Tam_Mullen said:
essayer said:
The driving other cars entitlement on your insurance requires the other car to have insurance
That is exactly what my insurance wording says, I just checked it, are you saying its wrong? I had best let them know!
I suspect that it is the assumption that because it says it on one insurance certificate / policy it must therefore be true for all...
I have had insurance where it was a condition, and also insurance where it was not...
Exactly. It down to the individual policy rather than a blanket statement.
Find me a policy that doesn't have this exclusion then. If there is one, amazing. I buy a Ferrari and a Fiesta, insure the Fiesta, drive the Ferrari. Ain't no insurance company taking that risk on.
Don't they say words to the effect of 'not hired and not belonging to you'? Presumably to avoid this situation. I would think it's virtually impossible to get anything dodgy past an insurance company and a dangerous game to play even if you could.