0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: tim in jersey on June 03, 2012, 02:45:19 PMQuote from: capnhook on June 03, 2012, 10:21:39 AMOK, then in conclusion:The "lazy leg" only gets LONGER, so it must point forward on a downward slope. Bummer. 2 legs on the decline would be more stable.
Quote from: capnhook on June 03, 2012, 10:21:39 AMOK, then in conclusion:The "lazy leg" only gets LONGER, so it must point forward on a downward slope.
Quote from: ArchivalAudio on June 04, 2012, 02:17:36 AMQuote from: tim in jersey on June 03, 2012, 02:45:19 PMQuote from: capnhook on June 03, 2012, 10:21:39 AMOK, then in conclusion:The "lazy leg" only gets LONGER, so it must point forward on a downward slope. Bummer. 2 legs on the decline would be more stable.Actually - That's what I used to think...I can't explain it really ... but some one with more knowledge in physics could tell you why.As far as I understand the force of the center pole is in direct opposition with the forward leg it shouldn't fall forward. Unless the pole is not vertical the one single leg reaches farther forward than the two legs...someone else explain this please...peace