MXA article on riding physics

I haven't read it. But that sounds right to me. Keeping your feet on the pegs results in more control. Only dab a foot when your about to slide the bike out from under you

To me that holds true except when I'm jumping, I like to lift my feet off the pegs upon ascent, it makes the bike go higher and allows you to throw around your body , just make sure you grip the seat after the feet come off a few inches,

I read the article and was a little confused as to what they were advocating as well. On the one hand they pointed out that any manuever can be completed with your feet on the pegs. On the other hand, they said that most people don't feel confortable leaning the bike that far, so they change the center of gravity by moving their leg around. My final take on it was kinda this:

keep your feet on the pegs, but
if you are in a situation where you cannot provide corrective input fast enough ( e.g. leaning the bike, turning the handlebar ) then changing the center of gravity by moving a body part is a perfectly acceptable technique.

Whoever wrote this piece could have gotten their pathetic physics lesson across using alot fewer words.

I only got a chance to look over the article quickly, so I cannot recall many details. However I did notice that most of the terminology used in this article did not make any sense to me (eg. max velocity); the maximum velocity of a dirtbike has no relevance in the sport of motocross. Another thing that I recall is one reference that they made to gravitational force not acting on a dirtbike when it is traveling in a straight line.:silly: Gravitational force acts on every object, even if it is going around a corner, or travelling in a straight line, or even standing still. Do these people think that their readers are imbeciles(sp) or something?
I guess it really isn’t surprising to me, that somebody at MXA wrote an article which they probably could not properly define half of the words used.

orion163 -
actually what they said made sense. Don't call thier lesson "pathetic" just because you don't have the vocabulary to understand it. I am not defending MXA, they certianly do spew out lots of junk, but that article was, from a physics standpoint,fairly accurate. I think the breakdown comes when they try and "dumb it down" and explain the rotating forces, gyroscopic affect, balance point, and inertia to the mass public (or at least the teenage population, which is the majority of thier audience).
you are correct about gravity, it accelerates all objects at the rate of 9.8 m/s squared. What I believe they were refering to is the affect on the trajectority of the jump.

Don't call thier lesson "pathetic" just because you don't have the vocabulary to understand it.

Click to expand...

I do have the vocabulary to understand it, however I do not consider myself a physics expert. I do have some general knowlege on the subject, therefore i am going to stand by my original position on the article - it is an inaccurate poorly written article that had good intentions.

I am not saying that the entire article incorrect, I am just saying that maybe them "dumbing it down" was a DUMB IDEA.

to the mass public (or at least the teenage population, which is the majority of thier audience).

Click to expand...

I guess we both agree on this. They took the good idea of actually writing a technical article in their mag, then they went and took out some of the bigger words replacing them with "easier" words that might not fit properly. All of this was done just to make a portion of the readers feel slightly more intelligent.