-
No, you're an ox.
-
no, YOU'RE on oxymoron
-
no, YOU'RE on oxycodone
ftfy
-
Saw this and thought of this thread.
http://tinyurl.com/cmu2jgl -
After a few beers and a couple of joints last night I solved the design constraints of the canine.
All those extra limbs flapping everywhere, the need to go around on all fours... It's ugly and undignified. So I thought I could improve on generations of compounded evolutionary design flaws and produce a cleaner, more intelligent design that would also look really fucking cool. And I'm really happy to say, it worked!
The previously insurmountable problem of dogs walking on all fours and having too many legs has been solved for good, dogs everywhere will now be able to walk, hop, and scamper without the need for those two surplus, stupid, legs that forced them to run on a horizontal plane, parallel to the ground. In short, I have 'hacked' it's physiological design structure to create something totally new and revolutionary, and for a limited time, can sell you the secret to allow your pet access to this revolutionary mode of propulsion.
p.s I have photoshopped out and clues that reveal any design secrets pending my patent application.
Thanks!
-
Hilarious! haha,
Two words: Neuron imbalance
The two legs are fine, they are the same length as with a normal dog and dog legs are generally sufficiently well deplored cellular structures that can cope with multilateral loads. In its execution the surgical execution resembles other biped species otherwise perfectly capable of walking and running overcoming the obvious imbalance in the system.
An electric wheelchair would solve the eminent locomotion problem however, dissolving any inconveniences regarding the superfluous limb-ends protruding out into our mundane environment.
As a proof of bipedal locomotion the dog appears to be joyful (but of course all dogs would) but dont assume any pretensions about the deployment of this operation in other milky-ways, except on a topgear galaxy.Simply put, you have shown in flesh that a dog can be operated on, and that they wake up afterwards. But what do you expect to come form this silly, but otherwise stupid bloodshed. If you are not able to substantiate how this can result in a better dog, you have a ticket over the cuckoo's institution.
Cheers!
-
sufficiently well deplored
You mean 'deployed'.
-
ok. well now that the anaesthetics have worn off the dog seems quite happy.
but as you are not convinced I got the hacksa... I mean my precision engineering equipment out again and tried with a different dog.
It also seems quite pleased not to have to walk on all fours now and kind of looks like the kangaroo you posted, which again, makes for a pretty cool looking dog-I hear Paris Hilton now wants one from me but I decided not to sell as it would be cruel to the dog.
It did start tripping up a bit though and other dogs tried to attack it-probably 'cos it was bragging about how dope it's new hacked body was and how it was patented and shit-so I got the dremel out and put this together, which again, I think is pretty damn cool as it eliminates those stupid legs but preserves a degree of social harmony whilst also being more efficient on a level plane. Unfortunately stairs are now a problem so I'm working on an offroad or at least flight-ready version:
Running down to the patent office now...
-
So you have proven a dog can run on wheels, or is it ride on No-Feet. We will except that for now. But what kind of a show do you think the super dogs you think you are creating can put on in a circus? Running around in circles is what the elephants are doing already, its not like there is anything new in what you are showing us.
I wonder what the Oblivious Supreme Court will think of your ideas when you present the findings to your stupid research.
-
Thanks, they appreciate the goodwill-it's a difficult period of transition for them at the moment.
If you or anyone else has any pets you want converted just let me know-I think I can do anything from shrew to large horse, but anything bigger requires more sedatives and more rugged engineering equipment.
-
Not sure but i think the subject was covered before. I suppose it doesnt make a difference in that the limiting factor would be the angle of the center of gravity rather then the angle of the wheels.
Ed is joking...at least, I hope he is.
-
I have only been to a velodrome once in my life, and ive never riden on one. That describes pretty much how much acquaintance I have with track cycling (and maby also an indication to the friction between me and tester...iduno). BUT, yesterday i suddenly thought why not go visit the velodrome in A'dam this weekend, and I just might do that. BECAUSE Ed's remark yesterday did spark something regarding these two quotes..
I'm sure any reasonably competent cyclist could ride around any of these problems, since they will all be of small enough magnitude to be lost in the noise, but they are also the kinds of small issue which make the difference between a bike which feels good and one which is annoying.
or a track cyclist travels down the straight at the velodrome
Seriously, Im looking for some serious conversation/discussion here. Let me try and put up a small tree here.
I just checked the wikipadia of velodrome and it says the straights are at an angle of 15 degree. And I assume that riders are able to ride down the straight handsfree? Please correct me if im wrong, im just making some assumptions. So what tester is saying is that he, and many others, are perfectly able to ride a bike with wheels at an angle of, say 15 degrees to normal, handsfree.Riding down the straight of a velodrome, I guess the bike tends to steer itself up the banking? So if you want to ride handsfree, you would have to counter that with your body?
-
And I assume that riders are able to ride down the straight handsfree? Please correct me if im wrong, im just making some assumptions. So what tester is saying is that he, and many others, are perfectly able to ride a bike with wheels at an angle of, say 15 degrees to normal, handsfree.
Riding down the straight of a velodrome, I guess the bike tends to steer itself up the banking? So if you want to ride handsfree, you would have to counter that with your body?
Yes to all that.
I haven't worked out exactly what one does with ones body to counter the camber steer and/or sideslip (there will be a bit of scrub resisting the bike's urge to slide down the slope), since after riding a bike for many years these things are done by feel rather than conscious input (although it help to be conscious of the concept of countersteering to hold a tight line at high speed round the corners) -
Ah, clear.
I dug into the subject a bit more this morning. When I woke up I thought it would be a good thing to have a bike that would be "neutral" on the straights. But after examining a few pictures of track riders (after I found out the velodrome in A'dam is closed) that on the straight the rider is in an angle to the floor (if that is how you say it?) and that in the corners that is angle is reverse (if the rider has sufficient speed...). Is that correct?
If that is the case, then a bike that would have "neutral" steering on the straight (assuming one could make such a bike), would be a drama in the corners? -
On the straight, you have camber steer towards the outside of the track. In the corners, this continues until you pass the 'neutral speed' at which the wheels are normal to the surface, after which you start to have camber steer towards the inside of the track. The neutral speed varies with position on the track (radius) and between tracks, but is typically about 50km/h on the black line. Using a sign convention of +ve being towards the outside, track cyclists can ride at different points on the track at angles from about +35° (riding slowly round the top in the middle of the bends) to -15° (going round the corners well above the neutral speed), for a bicycle which is neutral at a camber of 0°
If you built a bike which was neutral at +15°, it would have to work at +20° to -30° relative to it's neutral camber point, which doesn't seem impossible. However, you're creating a solution to a problem which doesn't exist, since a conventional bicycle with the wheels in the plane of the frame already copes perfectly well with these conditions.
ewanmac
lemonade
kboy
gbj_tester
voxelwise
deleted
Oliver Schick
edscoble
-
Post a reply
About
No-Fork project, bicycle geometry hacked
Posted by
@No_Fork
I'm even slower, I just came back to correct that. I'll leave it for now, so that whatok can come back with a hugely amusing "No, you're a moron" riposte.