pebu Posted March 28, 2007 Report Share Posted March 28, 2007 I don't make or ride bikes, so alot of this stuff is just over my head. (I like 4 wheels or one board.) But I do like machines of all sorts and sizes, so things like this interest me all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest theduckllr Posted March 28, 2007 Report Share Posted March 28, 2007 Hehe. I played with that forever to make it believable. ;) I've developed several versions on this idea. One day, I'll pry a Tesi off a local here who has 3(!) and make it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr D Posted March 28, 2007 Report Share Posted March 28, 2007 ...magazine did a story on Jesse James' version recently. Neat looking, but 39hp/liter.... yawn. ITs not all about the straightlining jack:lol: ITs definitely a because you can project however the unique sound and the volume thereof would be totally worth it:biggthump Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C5 Golfer Posted March 28, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2007 Now all we need is some crazy guy like J James to put one of these in a motorcycle. He better have his teeth and helmet epoxied in place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pebu Posted March 28, 2007 Report Share Posted March 28, 2007 It's engineers like yourself who make the calculations which help the rest of avoid wasting time and energy building and riding motoabortions.where would we be without engineers? and your assertion regarding the E-W mounted v8 is, of course, correct: when i first read your post, i didn't realize you meant a v-8, so mounted... by "v" I just assumed you meant a conventionally mounted v-twin. your posts and your insights, both as an alpine rider and as an engineer, are thought-provoking and very interesting, not to mention intelligent. thanks for them. I can't tell you the last time I made some calculations. Don't let anybody ever tell you you can't be an engineer. Everybody makes you think that every day you're engineering you'll be doing pages upon pages of calculations. That's what computers are for. Everything else is mostly "Eh, I think that should be thick enough." If it breaks, you make it thicker... Calculations just get you close. As for the oscillator... I'm not familiar with that. Steam engines (and any other heat engine) just kinda confuses me a bit. Thermo wasn't my best subject. IT would be really neat to see a steam engine on a modern bike though... edit. I meant to thank you for the compliment, though I feel that personally I'm not worthy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C5 Golfer Posted March 28, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2007 . Everything else is mostly "Eh, I think that should be thick enough." If it breaks, you make it thicker... Calculations just get you close.. My experience in engineering is this -- project schedules do not allow time for calculations and testing. So we do exactly what you say above, get it close, if it breaks make it thicker, "We are steel safe" It is why I do not fly much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pebu Posted March 28, 2007 Report Share Posted March 28, 2007 I can understand how aerospace engineers would need to do alot of stuff on paper. That's not really something you can just test... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Gendzwill Posted March 28, 2007 Report Share Posted March 28, 2007 My experience in engineering is this -- project schedules do not allow time for calculations and testing. Really? We test the crap out of everything. Typical project includes testing all during development and especially during the integration phase, then a pile of dry run testing for factory acceptance, then the customer-witnessed factory acceptance test, then the site acceptance test. Time from start of dry run to end of FAT is typically 20% of the total schedule. Mind you we're really software-heavy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C5 Golfer Posted March 28, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2007 Really? We test the crap out of everything. Typical project includes testing all during development and especially during the integration phase, then a pile of dry run testing for factory acceptance, then the customer-witnessed factory acceptance test, then the site acceptance test. Time from start of dry run to end of FAT is typically 20% of the total schedule. Mind you we're really software-heavy. I am not kidding, when I was with ADIC, (10yrs designing robotic magnetic tape libraries and auto changers -- DLT & LTO format) we were constantly beaten down by top management to have a new product by some date pulled out of the air or pressed by a Product Show. I always had to go to full battle dress anytime product schedules we discussed. The humor in it is there was always time to do it the second time when the product failed in its first launch. Mind you we were mechanically heavy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.