Whoa, careful with that brake pedal...!

[z987k]

there's also some videos out there on a guy who did a lot of g tolerance testing on himself in the little rocket propelled rail car thing.

 

[Beerthoven]

A bit off topic, but here's what I do on a motorcycle to make myself "statistically" invincible:

...

4. Just assume the driver of the car doesn't see you

The last item in the list saves my ass at least once a week. It's either that people don't see motorcycles becuase they are much smaller than cars/trucks, or they can't judge the speed correctly.

I consider myself a "motorcycle friendly" driver because my dad always had a bike of one kind or another and got clipped by drivers a few times so I'm aware of how vulnerable motorcyclists are on the road. However, it is really hard sometimes to see motorcycles, even when I'm looking for them.

I wonder, why do motorcyclists not wear bright clothing like bicyclists do? That would probably save a lot of lives.

The other day I was driving home from work and I saw a motorcyclist on a low rider, wearing a black helmet, black jeans, and a jungle camo jacket. The lights on his bike were small and hard to distinguish. This guy looked like he was trying to blend into the street. If some cager pulls a left turn in front of him and he has to lay it down, I'm sure he'll be all pissed off because the stupid cager didn't see him (assuming he survives). But he won't give any thought at all to hard he made himself to see.

 

[Sir Humpsalot]

I consider myself a "motorcycle friendly" driver because my dad always had a bike of one kind or another and got clipped by drivers a few times so I'm aware of how vulnerable motorcyclists are on the road. However, it is really hard sometimes to see motorcycles, even when I'm looking for them.

I wonder, why do motorcyclists not wear bright clothing like bicyclists do? That would probably save a lot of lives.

The other day I was driving home from work and I saw a motorcyclist on a low rider, wearing a black helmet, black jeans, and a jungle camo jacket. The lights on his bike were small and hard to distinguish. This guy looked like he was trying to blend into the street. If some cager pulls a left turn in front of him and he has to lay it down, I'm sure he'll be all pissed off because the stupid cager didn't see him (assuming he survives). But he won't give any thought at all to hard he made himself to see.

That's a good point. It's important to be visible. But on the other hand, in the 70's there was a comprehensive safety report that came out on motorcycling. It was named the HURT report after the author (whose last name was Hurt). The report looked at the factors that caused and contributed to motorcycling accidents. As you would expect, people wearing helmets generally had a better survival rate, however there was an interesting side note here. Of all the helmet colors available, the sole color that was over-represented in accidents was white.

White, of course, is the most visible color out there because it reflects so much light (same reason golf balls are white). However, more white helmets were involved in accidents than any other color.

Perhaps it is just flukey data, but there could be a reason behind it. Motorcyclists speak often about "target fixation". It's the idea that if you are looking at something, your muscles will instinctively cause you to head toward that object. It's the reason you see the youtube videos of untrained newbs getting on a bike, starting it up, losing control, traveling 100, 200 feet or more and smacking into a tree or light post. Of all the 360 degrees of travel they had to choose from, they selected the only single one that causes them to hit something. What happened? They freaked out, stared at the tree, and that's exactly where they went. The same thing happens to drivers when they read billboards or gape at an accident- you can actually see their car start to go towards whatever they are looking at.

The fact that you are seen by somebody in a car, in a way, can cause you to be more at risk if they are focusing on you and staring at you while trying to avoid hitting you. So, in that sense, it's not always ideal for you to be stand out. Sure, you want to be seen and noticed, of course. However, there may be a fine line between being tangentially noticed and grabbing someone's attention full force.

People who have driven fancy cars sometimes report the same thing- that kids in Hondas or whatever will tend to swerve into them. They are looking at the car, rather than looking where they are supposed to be going. Bottom line, the safest thing is for people to be aware that you are there, but not to the point that you are drawing particular attention to yourself such that they are inclined to look and watch you.

 

[TwoHeadsBrewing]

One way to be seen...and I know some people are going to hate this...is to ride with your brights on! If you have a modulating beam, this also helps but these aren't included as OEM on bikes anymore. I'd rather have someone pissed off at me and my big bright light than not see me and run me over!

 

[Sir Humpsalot]

One way to be seen...and I know some people are going to hate this...is to ride with your brights on! If you have a modulating beam, this also helps but these aren't included as OEM on bikes anymore. I'd rather have someone pissed off at me and my big bright light than not see me and run me over!

Certainly using your brights in the daytime isn't that big of a deal in terms of being a distraction, but it does help being seen.

I do ride with my brights in the day time, or when riding during sunset with the sun behind me.

 

[beergears]

I want to add auxillary (sp?) lights to my VFR, to make myself more visible (not seeing better) by just altering the "familiar" pattern for others.

I just s^ck at wiring though, And I would have to run stuff right off the regulator, as this bike is known for stressed electrics (regulator) -- a Honda... how could that be

 

[Snuffalupagus]

60-0 in one second can save your life...

since that vehicle is equiped with soft/sticky sports tires, ABS, and is quite light weight, going from highway speed to zero in a controlled manner that quick can actually keep you out of accidents, and help you avoid killing some idiot deer or black clad night walking pedestrian crossing an unlit country highway...

as for just pure bull goose lunacy, how about F1 cars that can do 0-100 and back to 0 in under 5 seconds?


the more powerful your car - the better your brakes need to be. this is the first rule of vehicle tuning. or as Pirelli tire company puts it "power is nothing without control"
spending 9k on upgraded brakes is not too crazy IMHO, I mean the guy owns an 80 thousand dollar high performance sports car... whats another 9k?

and yes... I agree with the guy who says let's autocross it...

 

[RedIrocZ-28]

60-0 in 1 second is impossible I am sorry. Thats a load of bull**** if I have ever seen one.

 

[conpewter]

And yes, as for number 4, I would go a little further. While I wouldn't assume they are out to kill you because that would cause me to be too cautious and slow (thereby causing people behind me to want to kill me), I would assume that they are completely indifferent as to whether I live or die. Besides being a good assumption, I also believe that is an accurate statement, at least in the moments preceding their awareness of a pending crash.

I agree. My wife and I were hit on a bike while sitting in a turn lane. The guy (kid) had been weaving through traffic speeding. Hit us... hit the brakes for a second and then sped off. Luckily he's a complete idiot so the cops got him. Unfortunately he got off with a slap on the hand (I don't even know if he lost his drivers license) for a hit and run...

 

[Boerderij_Kabouter]

That really isn't that crazy.... I am sure all of you have experienced a similar experience anytime you have slammed on the brakes... it isn't like he is claiming 150-0 in a hundredth of a second.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrFx51ymP4g]YouTube - MB E320 CDI brake test 100-0 km/h (60-0 mph)[/ame]

a second is a pretty long time and 60 isn't that crazy fast.

 

[RedIrocZ-28]

60mph is 88ft/sec

In order to decelerate from 60-0mph you would have to do so at a rate of 88 ft/sec.

The '08 Corvette ZO6 does this feat in 125 feet.
The '09 Corvette ZR1 does this in 97 feet. This car is The pinnacle of American sports cars in this price range for the non-filthy rich.

Its highly unlikely that this Porsche does this in 1 second flat. 1.5 I'll believe.

 

[Boerderij_Kabouter]

Full Test: 2008 Porsche 911 GT2

list stopping distance is 96 feet. So the guy spent 9 G's for an extra 8 feet. That doesn't sound impossible to me.

 

[Zul'jin]

My first motorcycle is 803cc. Granted, it's a cruiser. Not a sport bike. Just saying, there's nothing wrong with going over 650cc for a first bike.

 

[Snuffalupagus]

60-0 in 1 second is impossible I am sorry. Thats a load of bull**** if I have ever seen one.

well it could be for a street car - it probably even is... BS.

a Buggatti Veyron can do it in 2.2 seconds, and the Veyron while blindingly fast, is actually QUITE heavy and requires some whacking huge ceramic brake rotors to do it... Suffice to say if you put some HUGE Ceramic aftermarket brakes on say... a Caterham 7 or lotus elise (which both weigh under a ton) you probably very well could stop it in a second from 60mph.

well... maybe?

anyway it very well is POSSIBLE for a 4 wheeled vehicle to stop that fast - please read on:

A modern formula 1 car can do it... for an F1 car it IS possible. they can stop from 62 mph...
get this... are your ready? in 55 FEET!!!
not only that, as stated above the Bugatti veyron will go 60-0 in 2.2 seconds

an F1 car will do 124-0 in 2.9 seconds and do it in 213 feet!!!

as long as you are not violating the laws of Physics as we currently know them - given research and development, and a whole PILE of money... you can do all sorts of "impossible" things

 

[RedIrocZ-28]

Full Test: 2008 Porsche 911 GT2

list stopping distance is 96 feet. So the guy spent 9 G's for an extra 8 feet. That doesn't sound impossible to me.

This is true.

One thing still is the CL ad wasn't posted was it? So we don't know if this was a 2000 911 TT car or a 2008 or whatever.

I will still choose to believe that he is saying 1 second as if its figuratively, and meaning that its up there in ZR1 and GT2 territory.

Sometimes I get hung up on specifics...

 

[phidelt844]

I'm thinking braking from 60 - 0 in one second would actually be less than 88 feet.

If 60 miles an hour is equal to 88 ft/sec, then traveling for one second at 60mph would be 88 feet. Since you are decelerating for the duration, you will travel quite a bit less than 88 feet.

With that said, Porsches are very light weight and are factory equipped with Brembo's. If he threw some big brake kit on there with large rotors, 8+ piston calipers, sticky pads, and sticky tires, I suppose it's possible... The factory tires are already super wide, especially in the rear, to deal with traction issues while turning since all of the weight is back there.

 

[Boerderij_Kabouter]

No, Iroc is right. It is 88 ft.

60 mph = 88 ft/s

v = u + at

0ft/s = 88 ft/s + a(1s) therefore a = -88ft/s^2


v^2 = u^2 + 2ax

0^2 = 88ft/s^2 + 2(-88ft/s^2)(x) therefore x = 88ft

I think it is possible. I think that Mercedes utube vid shows it.

 

[Snuffalupagus]

No, Iroc is right. It is 88 ft.

60 mph = 88 ft/s

v = u + at

0ft/s = 88 ft/s + a(1s) therefore a = -88ft/s^2


v^2 = u^2 + 2ax

0^2 = 88ft/s^2 + 2(-88ft/s^2)(x) therefore x = 88ft

I think it is possible. I think that Mercedes utube vid shows it.

dude... I think some of your punctuation keys are sticking...

 

[GregR]

Full Test: 2008 Porsche 911 GT2

list stopping distance is 96 feet. So the guy spent 9 G's for an extra 8 feet. That doesn't sound impossible to me.

this isn't directed towards you in particular. I've noticed a lot of people making this assumption. . .

breaking distance is purely a function of how much grip the tires have vs the weight of the car. ceramic brakes/ big brake kits/ whatever do not make the car stop in a smaller distance. a 10k dollar kia is capable of locking up the tires with their brakes. large rotors or ceramic rotors simply help eliminate brake fade. it makes the 1 second 60-0 time repeatable. a big brake kit with more pistons in the calipers might help shave off a few feet because it can grip the rotor with more force and will maybe engage the ABS quicker but that's about it.

stoping distance = tires.
no brake fade = bigger brakes.

 

[Boerderij_Kabouter]

That makes sense. But on the other hand a larger brake force should stop the rotors down faster, shortening the stopping distance. I mean, this debate is over 8 feet of distance or about 0.2 seconds. Getting the wheels locked up asap seems an important task in that light...

 

[GregR]

That makes sense. But on the other hand a larger brake force should stop the rotors down faster, shortening the stopping distance. I mean, this debate is over 8 feet of distance or about 0.2 seconds. Getting the wheels locked up asap seems an important task in that light...

you're right. I did say that at the very end though that locking up the brakes quicker will probably shave a few feet off. it's just one of my pet peeves that people think bigger brakes == shorter stopping distance.

 

[phidelt844]

No, Iroc is right. It is 88 ft.

60 mph = 88 ft/s

v = u + at

0ft/s = 88 ft/s + a(1s) therefore a = -88ft/s^2


v^2 = u^2 + 2ax

0^2 = 88ft/s^2 + 2(-88ft/s^2)(x) therefore x = 88ft

I think it is possible. I think that Mercedes utube vid shows it.

Your equations are correct, but your calculations are off.

Using your v^2 = u^2 + 2ax...

0^2 = 88ft/s^2 + 2(-88ft/s^2)(x)

0 = 7744 + 2(-88)(x)

x = 44 ft.


44 feet seems very improbable with any vehicle of that size.

[edit] 44 feet assumes constant deacceleration. I would assume that this is not the case, so I'm really not sure where the distance would end up. I'm guessing between 44 and 88 feet though!

 

[Boerderij_Kabouter]

I am dumb. I should have to turn over my brain. I now concede that the 1 second claim a fake.