Jon Ellison Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mike D Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >

Quote
Origyptian said
> > "I think I understand. But this still
> doesn't
> > seem to address the apparent non-horizontal
> slope
> > of those "benches" with the cross striations,
> it
> > doesn't address the apparent lack of wider
> tracks
> > on curves to accommodate the wheel radius, it
> > doesn't address why some tracks on horizontal
> > ground show erosion between them while others
> do
> > not, and it doesn't address the sidewall
> grinding
> > that would occur on wheels that supported a
> heavy
> > load along deep ruts in bedrock."
> >
> >

> > For the benches slopes (in fact they are skew
> > planes at two angles) I already gave you my
> > opinion.
> > For the curves radius, they seem to have been
> > designed to avoid sidewall griding for a given
> > wheel diameter (I couldn't measure curves
> radius,
> > and neolithic wheel diameter can only be
> roughly
> > estimated, very sorry), please have a look at
> this
> > nice curve at Naxxar (not personnaly visited,
> > sorry) :
> >
>
> > When a track became too deep, another was
> created
> > (my opinion, just my opinion, not to convince
> you,
> > thank you)
>
> Track minimum radius could be dictated by a multi
> axle, four or more wheeled vehicle on a rigid
> chassis/wheelbase.
> It's why they have swivelling bogeys on railway
> wagons.
> A long rigid chassis can't negotiate tight curves.

Yes, for a given vehicle, the separation bewteen front and rear axle would need to be relatively short.