Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bikerpet

  1. Is there so little of significance happening in the USA at present that the media have to report on the ravings of the lunatic fringe? Here's a person with absolutely no influence on the events spouting personal opinion and some media amplifying it. When Trump, Biden or a current high rank military commander start saying things like that it's time to listen, not before. Unless the cry get's taken up by a wide section of the lunatic mainstream and it all degenerates into your next civil war. I guess then it'll be a great thing that so many people have firearms to protect the nation from the rule of law.
  2. I think we're now saying the same thing. That's pretty much what I updated my definitions to I think. But I did take the "on top" pretty literally as that was what you said the videos were saying. I had an hour or so riding until I got too hot today. I even made a slight improvement to my zaps - hooray.
  3. No, it's not. But Trump's legal challenges have so far been found pretty much baseless from what I hear (haven't been paying a great deal of attention recently). The claim that he's holding back until it reaches the Supreme Court is either more stupidity or clutching at straws. The Supreme Court is (I understand) primarily an appellate court, therefore it only decides on the validity of decisions already made by lower courts, it does not accept new evidence relating to a case. For the States to go out on a limb as suggested in that video seems fairly unlikely unless they had some pretty solid backing from their courts - so far not happening. Just because there is a path to Trump retaining the presidency doesn't mean he's got any hope of actually going down that path. So far the path has been pretty well blocked to him. Not impossible for him to get there given his willingness to lie, cheat, bully and generally act like the spoiled amoral brat he is though. I've become mildly optimistic that he'll more or less quietly be removed from office, prosecuted for tax evasion and whatever other crimes have been discovered, and hopefully locked away out of the public eye for some time.
  4. Seems like my definitions need refining then. I'm still not at all convinced about the zap needing to land on top. "Near the top" is not the same as "on top" and I've hunted around on YouTube and found various videos of zaps (by very good riders) where they land the rear tyre significantly below the top. I reckon the critical thing is that you're trying to generate lift and get the wheel to land high up on the object. How high up depends on your goal (a slippery log might require it to land right on top, a grippy rock could land much lower). At some point the zap will fail because there simply isn't enough forward momentum to pin the tyre to the obstacle long & hard enough to get it to climb the remaining distance, at this point a Splat might be more appropriate. So the Zap must include jumping the rear wheel high onto the obstacle. I still can't quite come at a clutchless zap, although I can accept that skilled riders can lift the rear wheel pretty high with just two throttle blips and excellent timing - Heck, Toni Bou can "zap" higher than I can get even close to with his engine completely off! I reckon that all falls into the "blended" basket, a blend of blip & splat. That probably comes from my tendency to break things down into building blocks for learning and progression. The Double Blip - I think you're quite right that the blip is a "drive the wheel in and roll up" technique, so that's got to be part of the definition. Perhaps there's a "Basic Dbl Blip" with no clutch and a more advanced one with the clutch? But neither have the goal of jumping the rear wheel (although this often happens a little with strong blips). Roll-up - accelerate the rear wheel into the obstacle, then let inertia carry the bike up. The front wheel either rolls up, is lofted above the obstacle or touches the obstacle on the way up. There is only a single blip of the throttle (or clutch dump). Double blip - Two distinct "Blips", either throttle alone or with clutch dump. First one lifts the front wheel, second occurs when the front wheel impacts the obstacle. The rear wheel is driven into the obstacle causing it to climb up. Zap - Land the front wheel onto the face of the obstacle, compressing suspension. Clutch dump and jump to lift the rear wheel high onto the obstacle. Splat - jump the bike, landing directly on the face of the obstacle rear wheel first, using the traction gained to climb the remainder. If you take these 4 as a sort of linear Venn diagram then there'll be areas where they intersect as one technique blends into another. So a Double Blip might use a bit of clutch and jump like a zap, but it's still primarily a roll-up type technique. A Zap might be really strong so the rear wheel smacks hard into the obstacle somewhere up the face and uses the traction gained to get the rest of the way up just like a splatter, but if the front wheel hits the obstacle first then it's always a zap, not a splatter. Now to go out and ride.
  5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txObLiiRAZE https://youtu.be/EQUKvFvmosI I reckon the Double Blip exists and is a specific technique. I'm certainly not going to say Ryan and Jordi are wrong, that would be pretty stupid, but I know from years of teaching complex skills (I taught skiing around the world for many years) that often it's necessary to "abbreviate" explanations for the sake of brevity and understanding of the goal at hand. Perhaps it's just quicker, simpler and clearer to say "land the wheel on top" to give people a clear understanding of the goal? For the most part I suspect that's accurate - if you can land the wheel on top, a zap will get you there nicely, if you can't get to the top maybe a splatter is more appropriate. But what happens if you try a zap and don't get as much lift as hoped and you land a bit low? It's still quite possible to get to the top - does that mean that your failed zap is now a splat? No, they're distinctly different techniques. If the zap developed for undercuts, is it still a zap if you do it on something you could roll-up? I say it is. For the double blip it's similar I think, but as Lineaway said modern bikes let us blur the distinctions pretty easily. If a roll-up is a simply driving the rear wheel in, then I guess a Double Blip is a roll-up, so is a rev & drop the clutch and so is wheelie-ing into an obstacle. But they are different techniques. I don't say this just to split hairs, I think it's fundamental - a technique is what you do, not the result you're after. The definition of "technique" is a way of carrying out a particular task or a particular method of doing an activity. So the end result is not a technique - different techniques can be applied to get to the same end result. Therefore a Double Blip is not the same as a single-blip roll-up, and a "clutchless zap" is not the same as a clutched zap even though they have similarities and share the same end result (I don't think a clutchless zap will get me far though). So I still see: Roll-up - single throttle Double Blip - two throttles Zap - two throttles, with clutch (or two clutches) Splatter - single clutch/throttle, landing directly on the obstacle rear wheel first. Roll-up through Zap provide a nice progression of developing skills leading into each other, developing throttle, clutch and timing as things progress. Splatter uses the same skill set, but the big difference is possibly sheer bravery to hurl the bike at an immovable object and hope you neither loop out nor slam into it face first!
  6. Neither Biden nor Trump are going to help correct that for you. Sad times. I found this an interesting perspective on the coming years - rings pretty true to me. Is a Republican Senate Biden’s Dream Come True? The past few federal elections here my electorate (a conservative rural one) has voted in independent candidates - they have been vastly more effective and positive than the party hacks that mostly preceded them.
  7. You really need to be more selective on the misinformation you choose to spread lineaway, or were you simply pointing out the misinformation being spread by the various vested interests? From dominionvoting.com: Dominion has no company ownership relationships with any member of the Pelosi family, the Feinstein family, or the Clinton Global Initiative. Dominion works with all political parties; our customer base and our government outreach practices reflect this nonpartisan approach. This appears to be confirmed by a variety of independent media sources. There are also people who believe in aliens controlling the government, and people who believe in an omnipotent and beneficent god. Belief does not mean something is true. If you have confidence in your country's underlying structures of democracy and legal process then you'll take all of the posturing and carry-on with a pinch of salt and wait for the final outcome. If you don't have confidence in those processes then you've got a far bigger problem on your hands than whether either Biden or Trump win!
  8. I still think there are just too many of us. Interesting observation on Italy. I suspect that a significant driver of many nation's population growth is fundamentalist religion - as distinct from the more typical moderates (if there is such a thing). Fundamentalist religion seems to be on the rise around the globe in it's various flavours and all of them I'm aware of take a pretty dim view of any efforts to limit birth rates - more so than even papal christianity, although that's bad enough. Certainly I've seen plenty of evidence that the more fundamentalists have big families around here. Still, I also suspect that much of the rise of fundamentalist religion is due to disenfranchisement, poverty and lack of decent education. So education is certainly high on the agenda for corrective action. Shame that USA, Australia and I presume various other countries overtaken by the neo-liberalists are cutting funding to education and even allowing the mad fundamentalists a voice in it in some cases. I'm obviously more of a pessimist than you even though I do consider myself moderately optimistic - I find it extremely hard to see Biden as anything much but a continuation of the neo-liberal status-quo that fertilised the rise of Trump. He's vastly preferable to Trump, but that's a pretty low bar. His rumoured candidates for the cabinet all seem to suggest business as usual, and that's a recipe for vacillation, support to the loudest lobbyists, aggressive foreign policy, neoliberal economics and a disastrous lack of connection to the people who voted Trump in. The next "Trump" (and there will be one!) is highly likely to be more intelligent, better spoken and even more dangerous in their own way, if nothing else they will have learnt valuable lessons from Trump's foray. So I'm not sure the thing stopping us is people like Trump - it's as much the people who just don't get why people like Trump appeal to so many, and fail to make a real effort to understand and find a new way forward. Biden needs to take a look at Jacinda Adern and learn how to connect with a far wider cross section of his country if he's going to have a chance to make a real difference. Fingers crossed that someone of his age has grown up enough to recognise that party politics and ideology are no substitute for just doing the right thing. As pmk would probably agree, somewhat unlikely in a career party politician. Oh well, it's all good clean family fun watching the reality show, and slowly, slowly things are moving toward a better outcome, perhaps.
  9. I'm now the proud owner of this very bike: Sadly it seems to have forgotten everything it has been taught. I'd say "get on it". I'm having a great time learning the most basic things. Even static balance on it is a level up from the moto, with the bottom bracket so high. Endos are sooo easy though. Back wheel hops still elude me (well, I can get up on the back wheel after about 5 hours practice and make a vague imitation of a hop before jumping to the ground). I can certainly feel it doing my shoulders good! If you've ever looked at a good trials rider's shins you'll know to wear shin protection!
  10. For once I disagree with ChrisCH - population is a huge part of the problem. Too many people consuming too much based on unsustainable systems. Breaking any link in the chain and things improve dramatically, cut all three back and things get better exponentially. China once again has actually done better than most on the population front in more recent years - although I'm not so excited about the authoritarian manner in which it was achieved. Australia, for once, is doing it's bit too with a negative population growth - sadly our impact on world figures is pretty insignificant. Where the argument weakens somewhat is that it has been a very small group within the global population who have consumed an outsized proportion of the resources and emitted the lions share of the GHG - we in the "developed countries", Europe, USA, Australia etc. Now large populations elsewhere are catching us up it's becoming a massive, rapidly increasing problem. pmk, regarding some of the logic you display around, say N. Korea - it's just not logical by my assessment. You seem to have confused what has actually happened, what Trump has said has happened and what you'd like to have happened. The nuclear capability in N. Korea has grown. Kim remains the same person he was and can be expected to resume his muscle flexing behaviour at some stage irrespective of who is in the white house, the kremlin, china's equivalent building etc. Trump has said he's dealt with it, and you'd like it to be dealt with, that does not make it so. Frustratingly I doubt I'll get the chance to say, "I told you so" because Trump wont be in the white house when N. Korea next escalates the situation. Wake up and smell the roses is about all I can say. The absolutely laughable implications I see here that Biden is a liar .... just what do you think you're saying? Have you honestly never lied yourself? Has Trump never lied (if you say "no" to that you are an utter, unmitigated fool not to put too fine a point on it!)? So just what do you think you are proving by saying Biden has lied? Of course he has. That's not excusing it or saying it's right - it's not right. It's just the ****ty reality of the world we live in. You say Biden lied, I say Trump lied. We're both correct and we achieve nothing in terms of showing the other is a better person/leader/whatever. It's pathetic he-lied, she-lied school yard behaviour, you should be embarrassed. Trump is a fool of the highest order - he can barely string a coherent sentence together these days, a primary school teacher would be in despair if some of the sentences he utters came out of one of their pupil's work. Coherent paragraphs are usually a step too far. Read the transcripts of what he says - it's barely believable that someone would utter this stuff outside a care facility. Our politicians are mostly a pretty rancorous lot across the globe (Jacinda Adern in NZ is the only one I'm familiar with who I'd have confidence in), accepting any of their glib and misleading statements and assurances at face value is foolishness, just as it would be accepting everything the archetypal used car salesman tells you (apologies to any scrupled and honest used car salesmen). Listen to what they say, then try to pick holes in it, don't try to find ways to believe it! And the red herring about VW-Gate from lineaway. What? You are going to conflate the behaviour of a multi-national corporate giant with the nation in which it happens to be nominally based! Have you been alive & awake for the past few decades? Have you ever read anything at all about corporate mis-behaviour? Going on that excuse for logic I could absolutely annihilate the USA for the obscene behaviour of so many of it's corporate giants, behaviour that makes VW's look like it was a paragon of honesty and responsibility. If you're happy to say you wouldn't trust anything from Germany, I guess it makes it reasonable that no-one should trust anything out of the USA, more so because the US government has well documented (by them in the national archives) activities actively supporting some of these corrupt companies.
  11. The US has a fair bit of digital voting and there is a long, long list of issues whereby it fails many of the fundamental tests of accountable, auditable vote casting. There have been problems with faulty software, hardware failures, lack of sufficient records to be able to verify counts, obstruction by machine vendors to access to source code in order to verify the sufficiency of that code ... the list goes on. The Bush/Gore election (I think it was) hinged partly on a voting machine that had a memory card inserted that was "corrupt" - it removed something like 16,000 votes from the count. That was not immediately detected. Internal emails from the vendor suggested it could have been a corrupt card or it could have been a card that had been tampered with to achieve that result. It would be nice if we could all vote from the comfort of our home and get a result in minutes, but simple is often good. I'll stick with wandering down to the local school to cast my ballot and enjoy the progress of the tally as it ebbs and flow.
  12. To be honest pmk I struggle to find a starting point to respond to this, because there are so many possible points to tackle. However I'll try this: Honduras, Panama, Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, Chile, Argentina, Phillipines, Iran. This is a highly abbreviated list of countries the USA has directly interfered in the domestic policy and governance, either through diplomatic pressure, financial manipulation (invariably to the benefit of US based corporations), clandestine operations or outright sponsored or direct violence. Usually a combination of all. I've given fairly generous benefit of the doubt in many other cases as to the motives behind interference, such as Iraq where eventually it was obliquely admitted the weapons that justified the invasion did not actually exist. This short list only includes those countries where the interference has been outstanding in it's virtual annihilation of segments of the domestic political or economic activity, or a large number of lives. In some cases the USA has helped to install tyrants and dictators who have terrorised and murdered their citizens. This interference has been consistent and ongoing through both Republican and Democrat terms, although I'm inclined to believe the Republicans have pursued these policies slightly more aggressively than the Dems. Therefore you personally are in some small way accountable for the election of those governments. You personally have contributed to the overthrow of governments, the torture of citizens and the death of thousands in war or civil violence, more so than than an ordinary citizen of probably any other country. Yet you rail when people from other countries reasonably politely criticise aspects of the processes within the USA that allow and potentially encourage this behaviour. You have indicated that your main concern is what direct personal benefit there is to yourself and other US residents, apparently ignoring the fact that much of what has been said in this thread recently is around making the world a a better place for all. Also ignoring the huge responsibility for actions throughout the world that your elected governments pursue. The US government affects all of us on this planet very significantly yet we get no say in it's election. Do you still wonder why people from other countries discuss what happens in your country and have strong opinions about it? It frustrates and infuriates me that so many US citizens seem to have no comprehension of the impact their actions have globally. For your information, somewhere I have a US Social Security number having lived and worked in the US in years gone by. I'm not totally clueless about what goes on in the US, although I readily admit I'm out of date on personal experience. In the experience I do have, compared to most countries the US citizenry is incredibly ill informed about the world outside their borders (I once had an American say with a completely straight face that it must have been a long drive from Australia to Canada 🤣), they're bordering on xenophobic and the level of national propaganda is such that they have no clue about the extent of the violence and destruction the USA wreaks on other countries. I don't really doubt that on a personal level you're a nice bloke - you ride trials bikes, you must be 🙂. But please open your eyes to the fact that what you do with your government can be of critical importance to millions of others. Take responsibility for more than your own hip pocket. Trump may have been good for your particular part of the planet, but consider what's been said here - he was a nightmare come true for global stability and moving the world onto a sustainable path.
  13. The rise of fundamentalist religion is, as you suggest, becoming an existential threat. I found it extraordinary that at this past vote Mississippi chose to replace their flag with a new one with "In God We Trust" emblazoned on it! If that's not discriminatory religious propaganda in an ostensibly secular state I'm not sure what is! I assume this implies more than 1 in 2 people voted for it, and are therefore Christians with little regard for the beliefs of others in their community. I suspect some of these same people probably take a dim view of places such as Iran where they have a non-secular government. Fine hypocrisy. All I can think is that trusting in imaginary beings was likely more realistic than trusting Trump. How that plays out now he's unlikely to remain POTUS I don't know. At least Mississippi is honestly acknowledging that it is no longer a secular state. I will restrain myself.
  14. Saying something does not equate to either foreknowledge or contributing to the outcome. He said that there would be a vaccine with no more than wishful thinking and the knowledge that medical science is pretty good at developing vaccines, like many of the rest of us of said too. So what's the significance of Trump saying it? Pfizer have NOT said they have a 90% effective vaccine. They have released some very early results. "The early analysis looked at just 94 infections recorded so far in a study that has enrolled nearly 44,000 people in the US and five other countries Pfizer cautioned the initial protection rate might change by the time the study ends Authorities stress it's unlikely any vaccine will arrive before the end of the year and limited initial supplies will be rationed" There's also a question mark over the fact that people in the study are only tested for Covid if they show symptoms. There may be more people who contract Covid but show no symptoms either because of their personal biology or perhaps even due to some masking effect of the vaccine. So there's still a few hoops to jump through before we have an available, effective vaccine. Really lineaway I think you should be taking off the rose tinted glasses when you look at Trump and the Republicans and be a bit more of a critical observer. There's good and bad in all groups of people. For someone who doesn't like lying politicians you have a significant blind spot when it comes to your favoured racehorse! I expect there's a very large percentage of his supporters who believe biblical history verbatim, anticipating the future could certainly be difficult coming from that perspective. Is it now I run for cover for my beliefs I wonder?
  15. Indeed. It's largely incomprehensible to me that Brexit went that way. What the UK stands to gain by leaving the EU compared to what it stands to loose ... on a one way ticket for at least some time. I suspect Biden might end up going down in history as an "achiever" president, not because he's actually that good, but because he's been given so much scope for improvement. But I agree, in more "normal" times it would be pretty much same-old same-old. Still better than Scotty from marketing though.
  16. True that neither have yet been officially declared the winner, but I really think that if you look at it without the filters turned up too far you'd have to admit it's looking pretty unlikely for Trump. His legal actions are being dismissed by the courts, there has been no evidence produced of wrongdoing in the vote, only assertions. Even his own party stalwarts seem to be deserting him (what's that saying about rats and ships?). It's not set in stone, but it's looking pretty likely. I'm guessing you had a straight face when you said, "What are they going to do if the GOP gets a guy that actually has a personality?". So you suggest that the US Presidential election is a personality contest? May the guy with the biggest smile and best TV personality win? Bring back Ronald perhaps? I'd prefer intelligence to personality in my leaders any day. But as Trump so clearly demonstrates, that doesn't seem to be a wildly popular view! I completely get that we all hate politicians who talk the talk but fail to deliver, usually because they are too busy playing at party politics. We are all fed up with the crooks, the vested interests with money and power who get an outsized say in how our countries are run. What I don't get is how anyone can feel like that but still support any of them based on party affiliations! I couldn't give a toss which party someone is affiliated with if they are demonstrably a decent person who works to put in place policies and processes that support the greater population, and now the planet. That involves giving up some Nationalist cheerleading in order to work quickly and effectively for a world we can all continue to live reasonably comfortably in for the future. If nations insist on aggressively competing with each other we're stuffed. As for claiming the Democrats are a bunch of crooks - even accepting that on face value, do you seriously believe that the Republicans are any less so after this past Presidential term? How can that be possible given the demonstrably baseless lies Trump spouts, his evident "tax minimisation", the nepotism, rushing a Supreme Court judge in after they obstructed previous Democrat governments installing one even in their last year, let alone weeks before an election. I'm not sure the Democrats have yet managed to surpass Nixon, Bush Jnr. and Trump for lying, crooked behaviour.
  17. It really is very simple actually. We just need to stop using so much energy in everything we do. Work locally, walk to work, use public transport, live at ambient temperature whenever possible. Pretending we can continue consuming as we do is a cruel joke! What we are doing now is trying to scale back our consumption without really making any sacrifices. It's a good first step and it's a pragmatic approach, but it's not a long term solution. 7.8 billion people on the planet mostly trying to emulate our western consumption - not possible. It's going to fall to our kids to really make the big and meaningful changes I think. I wasn't going to be quite so blunt. 😄 OOH. That hurts having our fearless leader bundled with the other two. Completely true sadly. One former Prime Minister always refers to Morrison as "Scotty from marketing" 🤣
  18. Of course, but that doesn't mean there aren't specific techniques that use combinations in particular ways. Agreed. Sure, but we humans move one foot in front of the other at different speeds. It's a heck of a lot easier to say "walk", "jog" or "run" than describe exactly what you mean (what are the critical differences between walk and run - that'll be a good long sentence at least). When we come to something more complex like coordinating throttle, clutch & weighting, terminology properly used can save an enormous amount of confusion. There's no way Raga & Bou think about doing a "blip", "zap" or "splat", they just do what they know they need to. But for us bumblers we need to have some idea of how to put together combinations of inputs in a sensible way to get a reasonable output. If you want to jump the rear wheel cleanly onto the top of a knee high obstacle what do you do? I'll bet it'll likely look rather like a zap, but I'll also bet it's going to be much clearer to say "zap" than describe the whole sequence, as long as everyone understands the term similarly. It's definitely mostly about learning and sharing knowledge - we all mix and match combinations of actions when we ride, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. It's only when we come to talk about it that we need language and words to describe things, and language is nothing if not shared agreement on what words mean. No question to me - it's a roll up. When you actually arrive at the obstacle you're rolling up it. You haven't launched the bike at it airborne, and you haven't used the obstacle to alter the way the bike is responding. Also quite clear to me - It's a zap. Because you use the combination of loading the suspension on the obstacle and a clutch dump. You can't clutch dump without giving some throttle so that's more or less irrelevant, you could get the same result by just holding the throttle open and slipping the clutch between the the front wheel lift and the second clutch dump - would that be a single blip or still a zap? Exactly. Time and again in these and other forums things go off on tangents while people come to agreement (or disagreement) on what technique's being talked about. That's why I've proposed a sticky in the Technique thread so it's easy to refer to and everyone can move on. This thread would have 5 or 6 less posts if we all called the same combination of actions the same thing!
  19. I wholeheartedly agree. Mathematical theories to fit irrational human actions are interesting and sometimes illuminating, but they have never been accurate. Daniel Kahneman's work on human decision making processes ("Thinking, fast & slow" is the non-academic source) which spun off Behavioural Economics ("Predictably Irrational" by Dan Ariely) is to me the most illuminating model for much of our apparently crazy human behaviour. Perhaps applying that thinking might allow me to understand how Americans typically believe their electoral system is a sound model of democratic process. I'm at a complete loss to understand why a nation would leave voting for the powerful national leader to the vagaries of individual state law, under the supervision of invested party members, with a bizarre system whereby the popular vote is apportioned to representatives who frequently can (& sometimes do) vote against the popular vote. Then, when there's a disagreement it comes back to wildly varying State law to adjudicate. Truly weird. Oh and to even get to vote you have to register with one of two parties, who you may not even want to vote for in the first place! Probably much more representative than 1 person, 1 vote, count them up, managed by an independent body with nationally consistent process and law. not sure how though.
  20. I'm going to take the liberty of posting my definitions as a starting point: Roll-up - accelerate before the obstacle then roll off the throttle as the bike arrives at or climbs it. Flywheel inertia carries the bike over, hence "roll"-up. Variations include lifting the front wheel and touching the front wheel high on the obstacle. Double Blip - blip throttle to lift front wheel, when it hits obstacle second blip to drive the rear wheel in to the obstacle. Zap - Lift front wheel (either blip or a bit of clutch), when it hits obstacle clutch dump (combined with building revs prior) to snap the bike up and get extra rear wheel lift. Splat(ter) - Aggressive acceleration, usually with clutch dump but not necessarily, to launch the rear wheel directly into the obstacle. May involve a kicker or not.
  21. I don't think so, it's 2,000km to Melbourne, 2,500 to Sydney, Brisbane even further. Australia is one of the most urbanised societies in the world, mostly centred on the east coast. Sure it's possible to build pipes to carry it, but why? That's just more energy invested in steel, concrete, diesel transport etc. Renewables lend themselves to distributed power generation, that's an asset, not a liability in most cases. Laboratory carbon conductors are interesting, but they aren't here now, solar power is. So we need to work now to implement available solutions. As Chris said, there are always going to be issues when you dig big holes and refine dirt into the desired components so that's not going to go away in the short term. There are however technologies available now to reclaim lithium from used batteries and cheaply and cleanly recycle it into raw material for more batteries. Lithium Australia is an IP leader in that area (don't worry, we'll be sure to sell them off overseas and go back to digging holes). With vehicle batteries the service life is determined by capacity more than other factors. Once a vehicle battery capacity drops too far it needs replacing, however lithium batteries maintain their ability to provide usable power even as their capacity drops. This means used car batteries can remain very useful for stationary power for years to come. There are already companies taking used vehicle batteries, testing and reconfiguring (for individual failed cells) then selling them as household power storage. In that role they have many years of serviceable life remaining, with the loss of capacity easily offset by slightly expanded size. I partly agree. I think EV are the solution for a significant part of the biggest problem countries - developed countries produce vastly more GHG than less developed ones, and a very significant part of that is from transport. So EV's are a good, relatively quick fix. Yes, ICE vehicles will continue to be a problem and that does need to be addressed with alternative fuels and probably legislation to avoid "dumping" of old vehicles - we need to take responsibility for the problems we (the developed world) have created. There are no single solutions to this, we need to implement solutions of all sorts as they are available and appropriate. NOW. I find it absolutely bizarre that people find EV a turn off. Not enough power? The Tesla S is likely the fastest accelerating production vehicle in the world, at a fraction of the price of some pretty exotic supercars. When you move into supercar country then the new crop of EV's are outperforming the ICE equivalents pretty consistently - and they've only been at it for a few years, not decades of refinement behind them. Weird. I also don't really get commenting that EM bikes are "Not even close" to green. The only "green" would be not to make frivolous toys such as trials bikes at all! Perhaps that's what you meant Chris? Stack an EM against a Beta or whatever brand you choose and it's probably "greener" over it's life span - similar amounts of metal, rubber, plastic, but less exhaust emission (it still has exhaust in most places - we still generate the majority of our electricity from fossil fuels). I'll bet that the total emission from most trials bikes is just a tiny fraction of the emission from the cars used to move them from place to place, so bringing up these sorts of comments is simply adding to the resistance to change without really adding value to the discussion. Trials bikes must be the ideal platform for battery EV - short run time, high torque, low power, small size. You couldn't invent a better transport device to electrify! We've drifted somewhat off-topic from "One for the Americans", but I'll plead that it's because the USA is such a major part of the global emissions problem. Fortunately it's looking like despite the massive shortcomings of the USA electoral process (what a truly bizarre implementation of "democracy"!) they might be getting a president who can see that emissions are an existential threat and who might take some steps in the right direction. Good luck.
  22. Although Scott Morrison is definitely a major impediment to the Australian government doing anything constructive regarding emissions reduction (he's actually an impediment to doing anything productive on just about anything at all - the term "leader" cannot be applied to him in any way!) the alternatives aren't too rosy either. Far too many vested interests in continuing to dig holes in the ground and flog coal around the world. Our labour party is only slightly less conservative than our conservative party on these things. At least we have a political system that does enable Greens and Independent candidates to get elected, even if it is fundamentally a 2-party adversarial system. There's no need to go as far from the population centres as the Nullarbor for solar power, the transmission losses from there would be astronomical! We've plenty of low productivity land with high solar insolation quite close to all the capital cities. Even here in Victoria (our most densely populated state) a company is currently building a 250ha 85MW photovoltaic farm less than 200km from Melbourne. South Australia installed a 150MWh Tesla battery in 2018, it's already saved consumers in that state $150 million dollars and delivered it's French owners a €23.2 million profit in the first half of this year. Unfortunately, just like our Covid response, Morrison the Moron leaves it all to the States to manage while he fudges the figures on carbon and pretends the solution to fossil fuels is to swap between them. Unbelievable. Not sure if you've seen it, but researchers in Queensland have identified a seaweed that when fed to ruminent animals significantly reduces their methane output - a large contributor to greenhouse gas production globally. No doubt we'll end up selling that technology to overseas investors so we can continue to do what we know best - dig holes. Now if the USA can get through this current election process in a civilised manner and rejoin the world as a cooperative member (re-join is a little generous I know) .... Right, it's 9:15am, better go get my shovel.
  23. I applaud your voice of reason and try to keep believing there are enough who have a similar perspective that we might avoid the worst of the coming climate catastrophe. As for the old vehicles, you're right, but while it may not be ideal at least buying only efficient new vehicles is moving things the right direction. Unlike the willfully blind who continue to purchase such obscenities as a new Chevy Suburban for instance! And it's a perverse benefit of our rampant consumerism that at least those old cars will be deemed "waste" in relatively short order, we can be thankful in a weird way for planned obsolescence. Of course skipping the fossil burners completely would be better, but it's certainly still a step too far for many. Our recharging infrastructure in rural Australia is still a bit sparse for me to easily move to electric, but it is changing fairly quickly.
  • Create New...