suicyclists again
in [Cars]
|
Prev: Hoover Dam Bypass and Vegas notes
Next: Illegal mexican with "suspended drivers license" pleads "no contest"to murdering 4 year old white girl.
From: DanKMTB on 10 Jul 2008 17:37 On Jul 10, 5:34 pm, gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 5:13 pm, "DanK...(a)gmail.com" <DanK...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > All these comments and no guess on my stopping distance? > > 25mph... <30', probably closer to 25. > ----- > > - gpsman Since the hard #'s I have for cars are from 30, I'm going to go from 30. I may make some runs @ 25 too, but do you have a guess from 30?
From: Brent P on 10 Jul 2008 19:05 On 2008-07-10, DanKMTB(a)gmail.com <DanKMTB(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 4:59�pm, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: >> On 2008-07-10, DanK...(a)gmail.com <DanK...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Jul 10, 4:35�pm, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> >> > wrote: >> >> As soon as you start skidding and lifting the rear wheel watch your >> >> stopping distances increase. >> > Why would the distance increase once the rear wheel is lifted? �At >> > that point hasn't the front wheel taken any extra braking force the >> > rear could have applied? >> >> To put it simply and crudely, because you're not going to want to plant >> your face in the pavement. > I am of the impression you've achieved maximum braking when you've > fully unweighted the rear tire. I can comfortable stop on the front > wheel alone, rear wheel hovering. You've achieved it and past it by. >> >> > Any takers on guessing how long it'll take me to stop from 30MPH >> >> > (using rim brakes, not that it's relevant) tonight? >> >> 60+ft based on the results I got last night if you skid/lift the rear >> >> wheel. >> > I'll be shocked if it's 60+ feet. �It may be (and seems it will be) >> > over 30, but 60? �That's 21 more than your best from 25MPH, quite an >> > increase. �Could very well be. �We'll see what I get for numbers. �In >> > light of the new info provided by MTR, my guess is 40ft. >> My best was _WITHOUT_ skidding. You only need to go five feet longer for >> 4mph faster _WITH_ skidding. > Where did skidding come into play? I don't even intend to touch my > rear brakes, much less skid. Front brake only eh... your fastest possible stop is a face plant. >> >> I was going by feel trying for the edge of lock of the rear wheel. I got >> >> it the first time. (I even re-measured that one) The other times I got >> >> lock and backed off so I wouldn't fall or skid the tread off the tire. I >> >> was in my normal upright riding posistion. I don't like riding in the >> >> drop. >> > Thanks for the reply. �If your weight had been way back off the saddle >> > do you think you would have been able to stop any shorter? >> >> I haven't ridden a bicycle small enough for me to pull that trick in >> ages. And I couldn't get one like that up to 30mph these days either. > Think mountain bike. I still have a BMX, however, and I think it tops > out right around 30mph. Not much of a stopper though, being rear- > brake only. I don't drive or ride SUVs.
From: gpsman on 10 Jul 2008 23:18 On Jul 10, 7:05 pm, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Front brake only eh... your fastest possible stop is a face plant. Probably... but that's irrelevant to the discussion, since it's faster than your asinine braking technique when applied just below the threshold of a face plant. But, nice try at applying your typical nirvana fallacy. http://www.csbomb.com/images/stoppie.jpg > I don't drive or ride SUVs. You really don't "drive" or "ride" anything, you only "steer". (I'd give you about 30' at 30mph, Dan.) ----- - gpsman
From: DanKMTB on 11 Jul 2008 08:26 On Jul 10, 7:05 pm, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2008-07-10, DanK...(a)gmail.com <DanK...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 4:59 pm, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> > > wrote: > >> On 2008-07-10, DanK...(a)gmail.com <DanK...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > On Jul 10, 4:35 pm, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> > >> > wrote: > >> >> As soon as you start skidding and lifting the rear wheel watch your > >> >> stopping distances increase. > >> > Why would the distance increase once the rear wheel is lifted? At > >> > that point hasn't the front wheel taken any extra braking force the > >> > rear could have applied? > > >> To put it simply and crudely, because you're not going to want to plant > >> your face in the pavement. > > I am of the impression you've achieved maximum braking when you've > > fully unweighted the rear tire. I can comfortable stop on the front > > wheel alone, rear wheel hovering. > > You've achieved it and past it by. How so? Please explain. > >> >> > Any takers on guessing how long it'll take me to stop from 30MPH > >> >> > (using rim brakes, not that it's relevant) tonight? > >> >> 60+ft based on the results I got last night if you skid/lift the rear > >> >> wheel. > >> > I'll be shocked if it's 60+ feet. It may be (and seems it will be) > >> > over 30, but 60? That's 21 more than your best from 25MPH, quite an > >> > increase. Could very well be. We'll see what I get for numbers. In > >> > light of the new info provided by MTR, my guess is 40ft. > >> My best was _WITHOUT_ skidding. You only need to go five feet longer for > >> 4mph faster _WITH_ skidding. > > Where did skidding come into play? I don't even intend to touch my > > rear brakes, much less skid. > > Front brake only eh... your fastest possible stop is a face plant. Without question. And if we allow over-the-bar tumbles (which still wont equal a face plant, at least with me riding), I guarantee I can out stop most cars, and stop well under 30'. Being an experienced rider, however, I am able to brake hard enough to lift the rear wheel for some time without going over the bars. I do it on a regular basis. Kinda fun, and it facilitates a very short stop (even without the face plant). So, considering I can brake hard enough with the front to unweight the rear without going over the bars, please explain where skidding comes into play or how I'd stop any faster using the rear brake. > >> >> I was going by feel trying for the edge of lock of the rear wheel. I got > >> >> it the first time. (I even re-measured that one) The other times I got > >> >> lock and backed off so I wouldn't fall or skid the tread off the tire. I > >> >> was in my normal upright riding posistion. I don't like riding in the > >> >> drop. > >> > Thanks for the reply. If your weight had been way back off the saddle > >> > do you think you would have been able to stop any shorter? > > >> I haven't ridden a bicycle small enough for me to pull that trick in > >> ages. And I couldn't get one like that up to 30mph these days either. > > Think mountain bike. I still have a BMX, however, and I think it tops > > out right around 30mph. Not much of a stopper though, being rear- > > brake only. > > I don't drive or ride SUVs. Ever hear of the right tool for the job? I do a lot of my riding off- road, on very technical trails. What type of bike would you suggest for that style of riding? As an aside, my bad knee was swelled up ~3 times more than usual when I got home last night, so I skipped the experiment in favor of icing down the knee. I brought the mountain bike today and plan to tool home slowly, using the gears to maintain a proper cadence for a leisurely ride (mostly off-road - again - right tool for the job) tonight, so I should be in reasonable shape to execute the experiment tonight.
From: Brent P on 11 Jul 2008 12:37
On 2008-07-11, DanKMTB(a)gmail.com <DanKMTB(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > I am of the impression you've achieved maximum braking when you've >> > fully unweighted the rear tire. I can comfortable stop on the front >> > wheel alone, rear wheel hovering. >> >> You've achieved it and past it by. > > How so? Please explain. If you were correct, that means the rear brake and rear wheel would be entirely useless for slowing. If the brake were useless it would be deleted to save weight. Once you've weight shifted everything on to the front wheel you've past the point of maximum braking because now the rear wheel is doing nothing. >> > Where did skidding come into play? I don't even intend to touch my >> > rear brakes, much less skid. >> Front brake only eh... your fastest possible stop is a face plant. > Without question. And if we allow over-the-bar tumbles (which still > won?t equal a face plant, at least with me riding), I guarantee I can > out stop most cars, and stop well under 30'. Being an experienced > rider, however, I am able to brake hard enough to lift the rear wheel > for some time without going over the bars. I do it on a regular > basis. Kinda fun, and it facilitates a very short stop (even without > the face plant). I don't think you're stopping as fast as you think you are. And I simply cannot fathom under what math a one wheel stop is better than two wheel stop. If it were true we could delete rear brakes on passenger cars and bicycles. > So, considering I can brake hard enough with the front to unweight the > rear without going over the bars, please explain where skidding comes > into play or how I'd stop any faster using the rear brake. First I said skidding _AND_ lifting. Unless you're going to shift your weight over the handlebars to intentionally lift the rear wheel it's going to skid before it lifts unless you don't use the rear brake. If you're not going to use the rear brake forget about minimum stopping distance. >> I don't drive or ride SUVs. > Ever hear of the right tool for the job? I do a lot of my riding off- > road, on very technical trails. What type of bike would you suggest > for that style of riding? 'techincal trails' is that to say trails that are purposely designed for mountain bike entertainment riding? I suppose you'll need one for jumping and other such things. However, I've never found an actual trail that was designed to be used to get from A to B that I could not take a road bike over. And that includes the rocky thing in Iowa that was called a trail to get to the top of the bluff along the miss. river. |