Braking Was : Best way to travel 5 miles to a train station?

Indeed I think we've just agreed on something there! It's easy to
forget all the good interactions that happen, in the face of an
interaction where one or other (or maybe both?) are the sort we're
talking about, which was my point - it's no use the ones that are
arrogant and abusive etc then turning round and complaining that
everyone else are wankers toward them on the roads... this is almost
certainly not actually the case, and if the majority of interactions
*are* like this, they *really* need to address their own attitude
problems first.

 

ITYM should /not/...

You don't really need them, as anyone[1] who uses the roads much can see
reasonably easily that if you want to categorise by quality of vehicle
management then the sort of vehicle isn't really that important. There
are tossers in or on every sort of vehicle, and same goes for good and
considerate as well.

Anyone who thinks everyone using their pet transport type is necessarily
Good and everyone in another sort conforms to purely stereotypical bad
behaviour is in need of a trip to the Land Of Clues.

Pete.

[1] not necessarily plain rude, arrogant, inattentive, careless and
abusive arseholes who are probably exactly the sort of personality type
that shouldn't be allowed on the roads

 

I'm sort of trying for the middle one.

I changed it a bit. What do you think would happen if I chucked a motorbike
out of a helicopter from 250m up onto you? Would you be endangered?

You're getting there, but from the wrong side. Champ's question needs
conditions applying to it, otherwise it's trivially easy to answer - eg in
the situation I was describing.

cheers,
clive

 

Question, due to it's reduced width why would a motorcycle have to stop
if it could simply slow down and avoid a hazard?

 

eh?

Or perhaps, just perhaps, "Make sure that our drivers are properly trained
rather than reducing everyone to a crawl to accomodate talentless fuckwits".

 

That was what I was taught too. And not to worry too much about stalling,
concentrate on the braking and worry about the clutch once it's no longer
an emergency.

 

Certainly when the engine mountings break and drop the engine on the ground
you stop in a reasonably short distance. (I knew someone it happened to.)

On the other hand you can have a Renault 6 put a conrod though the crankcase
and still drive to a phone box to call the AA (that was my car).

 

Not if it leads you to believe you can brake from 150mph in a shorter
distance than 245feet. (Highway code, based on drum braked cars on
cross-plies)

In a modern sports bike, assuming its brakes are up to the job, will
still be doing between 121 and 126mph when you hit the point that the
Mark 1 cortina has come to a complete stop.




As we've already pointed out, actual braking distances of modern
sports bikes (taken from motor bike mag tests, so in skilled hands at
their least mechanically sympathetic), from 100mph vary from
320 feet to 363 feet.

100mph - 0mph
Suzuki Hayabusa @ 359.9ft = 109.7 m
GSX-R1000 @ 320ft = 97.5 m
BMW R1100S @ 332.8ft = 101.4m
Ducati Multistrada @ 362.8ft = 110.6m
Yamaha Fazer 1000 @ 327.5 = 99.8m
Kawasaki ZRX1200S @ 383.2ft = 116.5m
Honda VFR ABS @ 347.4 ft = 105m
Triumph Sprint ST @ 320.5ft = 97.7m
Ducati ST4S ABS @ 318.4ft = 97m
Aprilia RST Futura @ 338.6ft = 103m

And 150mph means it takes 2 and a quarter times as far to brake as
100mph.

So the distances from 150mph for modern sports bikes (assuming their
brakes are beefy enough not to fade with the longer braking time are:
720 to 812feet.

i.e. once you hit the mark where the drum-braked, cross-ply tyred car
has stopped, you're still doing, at best, between 121mph and 126mph.

I can see why - after all, you've demonstrated graphically the depth
of your ignorance about modern bikes' braking capability., and of the
fact that there are brand new cars on the road now that cannot meet
the Highway code stopping distances

Check out http://www.movit.de/htm/tabstop.htm and look for anything
that does 55m or worse at 60mph, or 73m or worse at 110km/h. (I've
even worked out the comparisons for you.)

And there's at least one recent motorbike that can't meet the Highway
Code stopping distance. (A Honda Goldwing takes 16 feet more than
than the drum-braked, cross-plied cars of yore (59.9m)

Actually, yes we have. Your contention was that braking distances
have become incredibly much shorter. And they haven't.

(Although top Porsche 911 can stop from 60mph in about two/thirds the
distance a drum-braked, cross-plied car of yore could. If there's
only one occupant, and the tyres and brake diskcs are at optimum
temperature).

You carry on breaking them with such an incredible shedload of
ignorance, misinformation, and arrogance, and it's bad news for the
other road-users.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

Yep - when he reaches the point in the road where the old car has
stopped, he'll still be doing over 120mph...



--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

On the bright side, he may try to prove himself right, and so long as
the object he hits is large, heavy, and inanimate, he may just manage to
increase the average IQ of the world.

We live in hope eh? ;-)

Jon

 

Yes, skill and experience certainly allows judgements on the spot. As all
road users do from time to time - a motorbike throbbing between your legs
doesn't give you any particular monopoly. Experience doesn't seem to stop a
lot of road users talking complete rot..

I wonder what kicks you get from continuing to post against overwhelming
evidence and (no doubt) loads of your motorcycling chums giggling in the
background.

Eh. Your argument was...?

 

message
SNIP?

I wonder what happened with the Renault Laguna W2,2 dt !!!

 

You know, I've nver seen a biker with his full beams on. I do accept that
they can dazzle, and try to posotion myslef accordingly, but the dazzle is
(IME as a car driver) caused by the fact that the lights are higher off the
ground. And now we can't turn the things off even if we want to.

--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
Alfa 116 Giulietta 3.0l (Really) Sprint 1.7 75 2.0 TS
Triumph Speed Triple: Black with extra black bits
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

 

Ahh yes. That would be it.

 

My bike does a lot better than 0.77g when stopping from 60-0mph.

 

mb says...

You'll be banging your head against a brick wall trying to explain that
to those know-all calculator tapping cunts over there.

 

And how did you measure the g ????

 

Maybe. I would accept up to 1.2g as a reasonable ball park figure. Your
original claim needed 3 to 4g. That's why *you* have been banging your head.

 

Somebody did it for me, I made another post refering to this:
http://www.mts.net/~neelin/motorcycle/biblio.html
Halfway down the page "Stop Action--Yesterday's today's and tomorrow's
brakes"

I own such a machine.

 

Well, to be fair, unless he was travelling at the same speed or slower, he
would have had to alter his speed.

Oh, on a motorway. I had this image of you pulling out of a side turn and
then dawdling.

Are you mad? If he'd been doing 150mph, it would have taken him 245ft just
to get down to 125!

I don't think using a headlight in the daytime is necessarily a good idea -
the theory being that it reduces the abilty of the onlooker to judge the
distance/approach speed of the vehicle - but are you really dazzled or is
it just a bit annoying? It's very unlikely full beam you're seeing. As
Catman says, just the relative distance of the headlight from the ground.

The rude and abusive arseholes are just a sub-set of the human race. As for
being arrogant, using the one true mode of transport does tend to make us
feel superior.