Talk:2983: Monocaster - Revision history

Yorkshire Pudding at 16:47, 13 June 2025

2025-06-13T16:47:23Z

172.69.79.138 at 07:18, 17 September 2024

2024-09-17T07:18:58Z

172.70.162.207 at 15:36, 16 September 2024

2024-09-16T15:36:40Z

141.101.99.88 at 14:59, 16 September 2024

2024-09-16T14:59:57Z

141.101.99.135 at 11:16, 16 September 2024

2024-09-16T11:16:40Z

172.71.26.23 at 13:54, 15 September 2024

2024-09-15T13:54:51Z

NiceGuy1 at 06:42, 15 September 2024

2024-09-15T06:42:58Z

NiceGuy1: Too many colons/indentation

2024-09-15T06:35:01Z

Too many colons/indentation

NiceGuy1 at 06:31, 15 September 2024

2024-09-15T06:31:28Z

NiceGuy1 at 06:13, 15 September 2024

2024-09-15T06:13:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:47, 13 June 2025
Line 70:		Line 70:

	Since regular roller skates are pretty much gone now, seems wrong to miss standard rollerblades (4 wheels per skate, not the 3 Randall specified). Except it would go very close to the skates - I think the wheels aren't quite the same size - I guess that's why, but seems strange to choose the classic 2-by-2 skates over currently common rollerblades... [[User:NiceGuy1\|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1\|talk]]) 06:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)		Since regular roller skates are pretty much gone now, seems wrong to miss standard rollerblades (4 wheels per skate, not the 3 Randall specified). Except it would go very close to the skates - I think the wheels aren't quite the same size - I guess that's why, but seems strange to choose the classic 2-by-2 skates over currently common rollerblades... [[User:NiceGuy1\|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1\|talk]]) 06:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
		+
		+	I don't care how ridiculous they might actually be, I really – like ''really'' – want a monowheel. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding\|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding\|talk]]) 16:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 :::You can check the history of this Talk section like I just did, some weirdo wrote a wild rant about Randall's politics (seems out of left field and based on nothing) which had nothing to do with the comic beyond ranting about Randall and Randall being the author. It was the original first comment. Most proper deletion, I say. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
 ::::Actually, I think the rant came more out of ''right'' field, but I agree with the rest of that assessment... ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.23|172.71.26.23]] 13:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
 As a unicyclist myself, I don't think the unicycle is easier to balance because of a lower center of mass and a chain drive. As a few others have mentioned, they don't normally have a chain drive, although there are a few specialist ones that do. Normally, the cranks are just attached to the hub so you can directly control the speed of the wheel at a 1 to 1 ratio, which makes it easier to balance on. The other thing that would make the unicycle easier than the monocaster is that you can control what direction the wheel is pointing by turning the seat with your thighs. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.128|172.68.186.128]] 09:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 :Add to that a few niggles about the bicycle. Not sure if intended to be a Moulton-style one (wheels maybe the classic 17", frame totally wrong) or a roadbike-style-ish one (frame relatively Ok, as drawn by someone not fully adhering to the design, maybe confused by some MTB variations, but clearly not in the ~27" wheel range, give or take). Of course, wheels are neither concentric nor circular, so depends a bit on which bits of the 'circles' are right for the intended arc and which bits ended up more casually doodled. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.99|172.70.91.99]] 08:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
 ::There also don't appear to be any pedals on the bicycle, with the rider instead resting their feet on the bottom bracket. Which is... unorthodox.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.135|141.101.99.135]] 11:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
-:::Charitably, the nearside foot (and leg) is positioned at the top-going crank position, with the farside one stretched down to the down-angled crank/pedal, but the chainring is a ''solid'' disc (and a radius to match the crank-lengths), rather than the usual "with many cutout bits" and a few inches smaller in radius than the pedal-extents. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.88|141.101.99.88]] 14:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
+:::Charitably, the nearside foot (and leg) is positioned at the top-going crank position, with the farside one stretched down to the down-angled crank/pedal, but the chainring is a ''solid'' disc (and a radius to match the crank-lengths), rather than the usual "with many cutout bits" and a few inches smaller in radius than the pedal-extents.
 :AFAIK, unicycles aren't GENERALLY chain-driven, but tall ones are (to put the peddles where the rider can reach them, but raise the rider up, often to a second story of a building). That said, I don't see a chain here, but I also don't see one in the description, so obviously sorted out by now. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 :Add to that a few niggles about the bicycle. Not sure if intended to be a Moulton-style one (wheels maybe the classic 17", frame totally wrong) or a roadbike-style-ish one (frame relatively Ok, as drawn by someone not fully adhering to the design, maybe confused by some MTB variations, but clearly not in the ~27" wheel range, give or take). Of course, wheels are neither concentric nor circular, so depends a bit on which bits of the 'circles' are right for the intended arc and which bits ended up more casually doodled. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.99|172.70.91.99]] 08:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
 ::There also don't appear to be any pedals on the bicycle, with the rider instead resting their feet on the bottom bracket. Which is... unorthodox.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.135|141.101.99.135]] 11:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
 :AFAIK, unicycles aren't GENERALLY chain-driven, but tall ones are (to put the peddles where the rider can reach them, but raise the rider up, often to a second story of a building). That said, I don't see a chain here, but I also don't see one in the description, so obviously sorted out by now. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 :*...and if it is (perhaps for better off-roading?), this intrinsically pushes up the CoG. Perhaps you are trying to lower it slightly, again, then. But you can't bring the saddle (and crotch!) lower than the now higher top of the wheel. ("Timeline of Bicycles" version excepted, assumed assymetric? In [https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/510d47de-4b7d-a3d9-e040-e00a18064a99 some manner]?)
 :Add to that a few niggles about the bicycle. Not sure if intended to be a Moulton-style one (wheels maybe the classic 17", frame totally wrong) or a roadbike-style-ish one (frame relatively Ok, as drawn by someone not fully adhering to the design, maybe confused by some MTB variations, but clearly not in the ~27" wheel range, give or take). Of course, wheels are neither concentric nor circular, so depends a bit on which bits of the 'circles' are right for the intended arc and which bits ended up more casually doodled. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.99|172.70.91.99]] 08:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
 :AFAIK, unicycles aren't GENERALLY chain-driven, but tall ones are (to put the peddles where the rider can reach them, but raise the rider up, often to a second story of a building). That said, I don't see a chain here, but I also don't see one in the description, so obviously sorted out by now. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 Re: unicycles, the COG thing doesn't look right either, but I was distracted by a (thankfully) now-deleted troll comment before and actually fixing the description is beyond my skills, especially on so little sleep.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.184|172.69.43.184]] 08:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
 :i had good intentions, we need to call randall out --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.122|172.69.194.122]] 09:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
-::If you mean your calling out the ''other'' point, that has been deleted anyway: Randall doesn't read this site (that we know; and, if I had a site such as this made for my works, I'd think it wisest to stay clear), so he probably won't get your 'message'. This particular comic doesn't even have the slightest connection to that subject, so not even the page to say anything about it. And the point made (even if it was a valid one... it presupposes that there are no nuances and compromises, that one cannot have a complex set of opinions that neither wholly match nor wholly mismatch ''your'' opinions) was also absurd, when you consider how the ''other'' party involved has proven to be even more so. I won't dignify this issue further by putting names and places here, it really isn't the forum for it. But please realise (if you don't already) that your irrelevent point is out of place here. And most places on this site that you/others like you may have tried such messaging on  before. Go to /pol/, or your favourite forum's dedicated boards/threads. Ok? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.19|172.70.85.19]] 12:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
+:::<!--extra indent because this reply was submitted after the one below it (though started being written before the latter got submitted), so this makes it fit chronology/reply hierarchy better...-->If you mean your calling out the ''other'' point, that has been deleted anyway: Randall doesn't read this site (that we know; and, if I had a site such as this made for my works, I'd think it wisest to stay clear), so he probably won't get your 'message'. This particular comic doesn't even have the slightest connection to that subject, so not even the page to say anything about it. And the point made (even if it was a valid one... it presupposes that there are no nuances and compromises, that one cannot have a complex set of opinions that neither wholly match nor wholly mismatch ''your'' opinions) was also absurd, when you consider how the ''other'' party involved has proven to be even more so. I won't dignify this issue further by putting names and places here, it really isn't the forum for it. But please realise (if you don't already) that your irrelevent point is out of place here. And most places on this site that you/others like you may have tried such messaging on  before. Go to /pol/, or your favourite forum's dedicated boards/threads. Ok? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.19|172.70.85.19]] 12:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
 ::Call him out for *what* exactly? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.70.135|172.68.70.135]] 12:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
 :::As I dare to hint, just above, someone thinks Randall has a wrong personal opinion on some current issue. Which has nothing to do with this comic. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.19|172.70.85.19]] 12:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
 :::You can check the history of this Talk section like I just did, some weirdo wrote a wild rant about Randall's politics (seems out of left field and based on nothing) which had nothing to do with the comic beyond ranting about Randall and Randall being the author. It was the original first comment. Most proper deletion, I say. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
 As a unicyclist myself, I don't think the unicycle is easier to balance because of a lower center of mass and a chain drive. As a few others have mentioned, they don't normally have a chain drive, although there are a few specialist ones that do. Normally, the cranks are just attached to the hub so you can directly control the speed of the wheel at a 1 to 1 ratio, which makes it easier to balance on. The other thing that would make the unicycle easier than the monocaster is that you can control what direction the wheel is pointing by turning the seat with your thighs. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.128|172.68.186.128]] 09:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:42, 15 September 2024
Line 13:		Line 13:
	:He has a "Big Wheel Trike" (child's low-rider style thing) in there. On the logarithmic scale, and imprecise reference point (bottom/middle(/CoG,where different)/top of wheel/vehicle/rider/whole?), both the big front wheel and the small trailing wheels colpd be in the right place-ish, although having it slightly inclined could put them in the (place Tandall considers to be) ''exactly'' right place. ((Note also where the 10(?)-wheeler truck-and-trailer is placed horizontally vs the possibly relevent "number of wheels".))		:He has a "Big Wheel Trike" (child's low-rider style thing) in there. On the logarithmic scale, and imprecise reference point (bottom/middle(/CoG,where different)/top of wheel/vehicle/rider/whole?), both the big front wheel and the small trailing wheels colpd be in the right place-ish, although having it slightly inclined could put them in the (place Tandall considers to be) ''exactly'' right place. ((Note also where the 10(?)-wheeler truck-and-trailer is placed horizontally vs the possibly relevent "number of wheels".))
	:You could do something similar with the Old Ordinary (i.e. "Penny-Farthing"), either make it roughly right or depict going up a ''marginally'' steeper hill. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.142\|172.69.194.142]] 09:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)		:You could do something similar with the Old Ordinary (i.e. "Penny-Farthing"), either make it roughly right or depict going up a ''marginally'' steeper hill. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.142\|172.69.194.142]] 09:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
		+	:I'd say ignore the small wheel (would crowd with similar-sized wheels) and place according to the front wheel, might be easier to find room there. :) Agreed, missed opportunity, that front wheel '''''is''''' particularly large. Also, when talking about number of wheels and large wheels, how could he miss the {{w\|BelAZ_75710}}? A lot of people have been introduced to the concept, 2 wheels per corner I think and I think the wheels are like 8 feet tall in diameter! (I guess like 2.5 meters or so, I'm just pretty sure it's well over my own height of 6'2", which I know is around 190cm or nearly 2m). [[User:NiceGuy1\|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1\|talk]]) 06:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 :*...and if it is (perhaps for better off-roading?), this intrinsically pushes up the CoG. Perhaps you are trying to lower it slightly, again, then. But you can't bring the saddle (and crotch!) lower than the now higher top of the wheel. ("Timeline of Bicycles" version excepted, assumed assymetric? In [https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/510d47de-4b7d-a3d9-e040-e00a18064a99 some manner]?)
 :Add to that a few niggles about the bicycle. Not sure if intended to be a Moulton-style one (wheels maybe the classic 17", frame totally wrong) or a roadbike-style-ish one (frame relatively Ok, as drawn by someone not fully adhering to the design, maybe confused by some MTB variations, but clearly not in the ~27" wheel range, give or take). Of course, wheels are neither concentric nor circular, so depends a bit on which bits of the 'circles' are right for the intended arc and which bits ended up more casually doodled. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.99|172.70.91.99]] 08:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
 Hmm, Randall missed an opportunity to put a Penny-Farthing in there... though I'm not sure how that would have categorised given that it has two wheels of different sizes. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.178|172.68.205.178]] 08:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
@@ Line 57: / Line 58: @@
 [[User:Fephisto|Fephisto]] ([[User talk:Fephisto|talk]]) 20:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
 What a missed opportunity to include the 14 wheeled flowboard [[User:Scab|Scab]] ([[User talk:Scab|talk]]) 10:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)