Originally Posted by
NYMXer
I don't think that's a fair comparison FBinNY because when you sit in a car, you are in the middle of the car on a suspended seat. The bike is at the rear of the car on a solid 2 point rack. Any bouncing (maybe not as violent as a paint mixer) is multiplied because it's at the rear of the car (think back seat of a school bus) and that bouncing force is applied to two specific points could lead to failure, IDK. It made sense to me but I still thought it was a bit exaggerated and wanted to see if anyone else heard similar concerns.
Like many you're confusing force with movement. Yes the bicycle gets a "rough ride" but as long as it's
securely strapped to the rack, it's tied to the inertial considerations that apply to the car. This is why and how seat belts keep you safe.
Going back to your school bus, the kids in back do get plenty of movement, but their brains don't get addled nor do their asses get bruised.
The same logic is why pilots want passengers to wear the seat belts at all times. In rough turbulence, the belts ensure that they move with the plane. They get shaken and spill their drinks, but they don't get hurt, unlike those who aren't strapped in and get bounced against other stuff.
Meanwhile, as far as I'm concerned, we've moved afar from the original question, and I think we're starting in circles, so having cleared up the rack question (I hope) I'll call it quits on this thread.