Bicycle Stopping Distances
Anton Berlin
to stop faster than a car.
But that includes that the rider has both hands on the bars (and
brakes) which is hard to do when you're flipping someone off.
At 50 kmh
http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/brakes2.html
Bike stops in 10 meters
http://www.forensicdynamics.com/stopdistcalc
Car stops in 14 meters.
I hate proving Kunich wrong (again) at the expense of proving Magilla
right.
But Kunich may be right on an empirical basis. It make take several
hundred meters to slow his fat ass to a stop.
Besides this is all theory as we know Kunich has never gone 30 mph on
a bike.
Ryan Cousineau
<16b1497c-17da-4fec...@15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
Anton Berlin <truth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The missing factor is essentially reaction time, which probably explains
how Dr. Evil managed to whomp two riders with his trunk.
Here's a claim that reaction times vary around 0.7-1.5 s for drivers in
braking situations.
That suggests that if the Doctor swerved and braked fast enough, the
riders would not have had time to react before hitting the car. He's
effectively got about a 1-second head start on braking, and at 50 km/h,
that's about 14 meters.
In other words, the car could be at zero km/h before the riders got to
their brakes, and the rest depends on how closely in front of them he
cut.
Considering he seems to have been trying to injure them, I'm going to
guess really close, like 5m.
I figure that scenario as being 14 metres of stopping distance but about
24 metres of rt+ideal stopping. In other words, physics says those
cyclists were gonna hit the car no matter how good their brakes, as long
as their reaction times were within human norms.
Gerbils or monkeys may have better reaction times than humans, though.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
Anton Berlin
> In article
> <16b1497c-17da-4fec-bc2c-ca9fc22d8...@15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
> "In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
>
> - Show quoted text -
You're right. The good Dr. was one up on them knowing he was going to
slam the brakes.
I hope he gets a few years just because the man bites dog angle will
generate a lot of coverage.
However as we all know it's more prudent to run over cyclists from
behind if you want to avoid the legal tangles.
In fact it might be one of the easiest ways on the planet to kill
someone without consequences.
Tom Kunich
news:rcousine-8D4EA0.16054201112009@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
As usual, those who fail to think do the most talking.
The brakes on a modern car will stop the car at a rate of about one gee.
Race cars commonly brake well above one gee. Moreover, car tires, which
cover a large portion of the road and put more square inches of rubber on
the road per lb. of load, are less susceptible to road conditions, gravel
etc. on the road and other traction problems.
Because of the high center of gravity a bicycle has, the braking force you
can apply while sitting normally on the saddle is about 1/2 gee. Got that?
HALF the braking force of a car. You can increase your braking force to
perhaps .85 gees by sliding backwards and putting your stomach on the
saddle. This unfortunately greatly decreases your control of the bicycle
while increasing your ability to brake by lowering your center of gravity.
Note that normally the time to slide back like that would take more
time/distance than the slightly improved braking would justify.
The reaction time for both the driver and the rider are the same and so can
be ignored when discussing stopping distances at equal speeds.
Anton Berlin
> "Ryan Cousineau" <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote in message> > <16b1497c-17da-4fec-bc2c-ca9fc22d8...@15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gee, where the fuck did you get the idea G was gee?
Geesus fucking christ you're an idiot.
Anton Berlin
>
> - Show quoted text -
Now that I am over laughing how stupid you are to put 'gee' I've
realized that every fucking other part of your post ignores the
science and logic of what's already been discussed in these threads.
I know you're not a troll Kunich, just quite possibly the biggest
fucking idiot on the planet that isn't being fed by an airplane
spoon. Or are you?
RicodJour
Did you have too much candy and your blood sugar is all out of whack?
Here's my advice: back out of this losing thread you started and
start another hopefully funny one on a totally different topic. Just
ignore this thread and it will go away without you making a further
idiot of yourself.
R
Anton Berlin
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dumbass do you realize you're taking Kunich's side and against all
scientific fact and evidence, not to mention common sense?
That makes you a stupid fucking fuck also.
RicodJour
The candy is definitely a factor, but you're probably wearing your
jammies with the big S on the chest, running around saying, "Truth,
justice and the Anton way!"
Grab a glass of milk and say nighty night. You'll feel better in the
morning.
R
DirtRoadie
> However as we all know it's more prudent to run over cyclists from
> behind if you want to avoid the legal tangles.
>
> In fact it might be one of the easiest ways on the planet to kill
> someone without consequences.
I respectfully disagree. My impression, based upon an experience I
had, is that it would be easy for the driver of a motorized vehicle to
do insure damage by pulling closely in front of a paceline or similar
group of cyclists, hitting the brakes and causing the front riders to
also hit their brakes. This causes the following riders to plow into
the leading riders and if done properly, causes them all to crash in a
nice pileup. If executed by a skilled perpetrator there need not be
any contact between the car and riders and the driver can depart with
no physical evidence of any involvement. After all, a broken rear
window and/or blood is far too messy.
In the LA road rage trial, relative braking distances and/or
capabilities of bikes vs. cars is a red herring thrown in by sleazy
defense counsel trying to divert the jury's attention from the fact
that the dear doctor performed a deliberate and illegal act which
caused exactly the illegal results which might have been expected.
DR
DirtRoadie
> The reaction time for both the driver and the rider are the same and so can
> be ignored when discussing stopping distances at equal speeds.
Huh? How can the driver's "reaction time" be relevant what he has
nothing to react to?
RicodJour
TK is talking absolute/objective, your are talking relative/
subjective.
You are both right, but, as usual, I am more right. ;)
R
Howard Kveck
DirtRoadie <DirtR...@aol.com> wrote:
Exactly, at least in the case in discussion at the moment. In general, however,
that is true.
--
tanx,
Howard
Caught playing safe
It's a bored game
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Tom Kunich
news:c72709df-2859-435b...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
I'm speaking purely of stopping ability as on a test course.
In the case of the relevant assault, since it takes between .7 and 1.5
seconds or so to react, and if the driver cut in close enough there wouldn't
be sufficient time to react and hence no way whatsoever to avoid running
into the back of the car.
Joe
"Tom Kunich" <tku...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ue6dnefsG_5vsXPX...@earthlink.com...
Anton Berlin
> "Tom Kunich" <tkun...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ue6dnefsG_5vsXPX...@earthlink.com...
>
>
>
> > "Ryan Cousineau" <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote in message> >> <16b1497c-17da-4fec-bc2c-ca9fc22d8...@15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
A gee-nius?
z
The proper rbr term is gee-nus
Paul B. Anders
Plug in 50 mph. Anyone who has done any high-speed descending who
believes a bike can stop from 50 mph in under 100 feet is smoking
weed. It's laughable. Go descend Carson or Monitor passes in the
Sierra's, where you can hit 50 mph easily, and do a full-on panic stop
and see if you can do this.
Brad
Diablo Scott
> Plug in 50 mph. Anyone who has done any high-speed descending who
> believes a bike can stop from 50 mph in under 100 feet is smoking
> weed. It's laughable. Go descend Carson or Monitor passes in the
> Sierra's, where you can hit 50 mph easily, and do a full-on panic stop
> and see if you can do this.
>
> Brad
The calculator assumes a flat road; stopping distance on a 10%
downhill is obviously quite a bit longer.
They had to assume some total mass also, but weren't specific there.
Joe
"Diablo Scott" <diabl...@terra.es> wrote in message
news:4e1d302e-dc13-489d...@f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
If I'm *ever* able to hit 50mph on a flat road, the absolute *last* thing on
my mind will be stopping.
LOL
DirtRoadie
> Plug in 50 mph. Anyone who has done any high-speed descending who
> believes a bike can stop from 50 mph in under 100 feet is smoking
> weed. It's laughable. Go descend Carson or Monitor passes in the
> Sierra's, where you can hit 50 mph easily, and do a full-on panic stop
> and see if you can do this.
It's funny, I have ridden those passes, and 50 mph descents are also
common on many of my local roads. I honestly have no idea how I might
hope to stop under such conditions, although I suspect it would not be
that quickly. I DO know that I never want to be faced with finding
out nor am I likely to go out and do any significant experimenting
toward that end.
DR
bjwe...@gmail.com
Listen up monkeys,
The calculator is wrong because they did not
consider that a bike's braking ability is limited
by going over the bars.
The calculator, for 30 mph = 13.4 m/s, returns
a stopping distance of 10.4 meters. This
translates to a deceleration of 8.6 m/s^2, from
distance = 0.5 * (initial velocity)^2/ acceleration.
This is suspiciously close to 1 g = 9.8 m/s^2
times the "adhesion coefficient" of 0.85 that the
calculator suggests. So I think they assumed
that a bike can brake at slightly less than 1 g,
slightly less because it's limited by tire adhesion.
However, everyone who thinks about this says that
a bike can't do that because of the high center of mass.
Most people agree that just from geometry (height of
the center of mass relative to how far forward the front
wheel contact patch), a bike is limited to at most
0.6 g deceleration, or 5.9 m/s^2.
If you use 0.6 g to calculate the stopping distance
from 30 mph, it's 15.2 meters. And that is assuming
absolutely perfect conditions and flat ground,
not down hill, which makes the endo problem worse.
So no, a bike cannot stop faster than a car.
Ben
RicodJour
wrote:
>
{snip of confusing facts and numbers that "smart" people use to
confuse the "stupid" people, and, yes, I'm talking about "you"}
>
> So no, a bike cannot stop faster than a car.
It's not about the bike. It's about the guy _on_ the bike...unless
it's a really nice bike. If it's a hot girl on a bike, then it's a
toss up, or a tossed salad if she's feeling frisky.
R
marco
> The calculator is wrong because they did not
> consider that a bike's braking ability is limited
> by going over the bars.
> However, everyone who thinks about this says that
> a bike can't do that because of the high center of mass.
> Most people agree that just from geometry (height of
> the center of mass relative to how far forward the front
> wheel contact patch), a bike is limited to at most
> 0.6 g deceleration, or 5.9 m/s^2.
A naive dynamics question: isn't it possible to modulate the front and rear
brakes to offset the high-center-of-gravity problem? Without really thinking
about it, that's what it feels like you do instinctively when trying to stop
really quickly. And of course you also push your weight back as much as you
can.
> So no, a bike cannot stop faster than a car.
Somebody should do this test and post it on youtube.
RicodJour
> bjw wrote:
> > The calculator is wrong because they did not
> > consider that a bike's braking ability is limited
> > by going over the bars.
> ...<snip>...
> > However, everyone who thinks about this says that
> > a bike can't do that because of the high center of mass.
> > Most people agree that just from geometry (height of
> > the center of mass relative to how far forward the front
> > wheel contact patch), a bike is limited to at most
> > 0.6 g deceleration, or 5.9 m/s^2.
>
> A naive dynamics question: isn't it possible to modulate the front and rear
> brakes to offset the high-center-of-gravity problem? Without really thinking
> about it, that's what it feels like you do instinctively when trying to stop
> really quickly. And of course you also push your weight back as much as you
> can.
And those things have a negative impact on reaction time.
RicodJour
Sorry, I hit send too quickly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbroNClq7l4
That guy was still moving?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvWJsxI8Vz4
And, if you're not humor impaired...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zeYdTjNrBg
R
Paul B. Anders
wrote:
It's even worse than you cite. I used to coach riders in our club on
effective use of their brakes. Note that these weren't elites, they
were your typical club racers, probably like the guys who got brake-
checked. Many barely used their front brakes at all, due to fear of
doing an endo. We did drills in parking lots where we trained people
how to use their front brakes effectively by progressively braking
down from higher and higher speeds, and applying more front brake
bias. It took a LOT of passes before people could begin to properly
shift their weight, brake hard, and unweight their rear wheels at
all.
Add in the inherent limitation of the high CG on bicycle braking
performance, and your average rider can't begin to stop anywhere near
as quickly as a car where the driver has fully engaged the ABS. And
it's one thing to be fully prepared for a corner, shift your weight
back, and apply full braking, vs. having some hair-trigger lunatic ER
doc whip his car in front of you and slam on his brakes without
warning.
bjwe...@gmail.com
No, you can't get extra braking power from the rear brake.
Braking transfers weight forward, as we all have felt;
another way of thinking about it is that the deceleration
of your center of mass generates a torque which wants
to pivot the bike forward around the front contact patch,
and the force of gravity pulling you down is what
counteracts that torque.
The limit of about 0.6 g is when the bike is just about
to start pivoting about the front contact patch by lifting
the rear wheel. At that point, it doesn't matter what
you do with the rear brake because there's almost no
weight on the rear wheel, so no friction. If you grab
it hard you may skid the rear wheel.
When trying to stop quickly, I grab both brakes, but I
think the rear is psychological. If your brakes are weak
or squishy or the road is wet, grabbing both may help.
I don't like braking real hard on the rear because it
skids - if you hit a wet patch or a bit of sand on the
road, very easy to skid and lose it. As Anders said,
newbies never get this right. It's tough to brake hard
enough on the front to endo, unless you are MTB'ing
and drop the front wheel into a rut or hole.
BTW, the 0.6 g number isn't magical, it's just based
on the angle from your center of mass to the front
contact patch. If the center of mass is around your
belly button, then (on my bike) the height off the ground
is about 1.2 m and the horizontal distance to the
contact patch is about 0.75 m. The geometry of the
opposing torques from deceleration and gravity means
that the bike starts to endo when the deceleration is
more than (0.75/1.2) ~ 0.63 g. All fairly approximate.
Ben
Paul B. Anders
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
I always use both brakes when stopping hard, modulating the rear to
avoid lock-up. Why? Because 99% of the braking I'm doing isn't
threshold braking at the max. You get shorter stopping distances with
more control by using both brakes. Also, most front brakes become
pretty tough to modulate when you're near the limit, so if I can shift
even 10% of the load to the rear brake and tire, it makes it easier to
control.
This video is pretty dry, but it gets the points across about using
your front and rear brakes effectively:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeJ1JH2ah00
Brad anders
Michael Press
<6e59efc3-1a46-47ef...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Anton Berlin <truth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I always write `g' or `g_n', because
the official nomenclature is `g' with a a subscript `n';
and the value is 9.806 65 m /s^2 exactly.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
"marco" <marco_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> bjw wrote:
> > The calculator is wrong because they did not
> > consider that a bike's braking ability is limited
> > by going over the bars.
> ...<snip>...
> > However, everyone who thinks about this says that
> > a bike can't do that because of the high center of mass.
> > Most people agree that just from geometry (height of
> > the center of mass relative to how far forward the front
> > wheel contact patch), a bike is limited to at most
> > 0.6 g deceleration, or 5.9 m/s^2.
>
> A naive dynamics question: isn't it possible to modulate the front and rear
> brakes to offset the high-center-of-gravity problem? Without really thinking
> about it, that's what it feels like you do instinctively when trying to stop
> really quickly. And of course you also push your weight back as much as you
> can.
You can try this. Start braking with only the rear brake,
moderate to heavy braking, but short of skidding the rear
tire. Now apply the front brake heavily. You will skid the
rear tire.
--
Michael Press
Susan Walker
> and the value is 9.806 65 m /s^2 exactly.
Depends.
MagillaGorilla
> In article
> <16b1497c-17da-4fec...@15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
> Anton Berlin <truth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In a head to head test and in normal conditions a bike should be able
> > to stop faster than a car.
> >
> > But that includes that the rider has both hands on the bars (and
> > brakes) which is hard to do when you're flipping someone off.
> >
> > At 50 kmh
> >
> > http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/brakes2.html
> >
> > Bike stops in 10 meters
> >
> > http://www.forensicdynamics.com/stopdistcalc
> >
> > Car stops in 14 meters.
> >
> > I hate proving Kunich wrong (again) at the expense of proving Magilla
> > right.
> >
> > But Kunich may be right on an empirical basis. It make take several
> > hundred meters to slow his fat ass to a stop.
> >
> > Besides this is all theory as we know Kunich has never gone 30 mph on
> > a bike.
>
> The missing factor is essentially reaction time, which probably explains
> how Dr. Evil managed to whomp two riders with his trunk.
The 2 jackass cyclists never slowed down to less than 30 mph when they hit
the Infiniti. That's not even close to stopping. That's what happens when
you're too busy flipping off a driver instead of maintaining control of
your bicycle as required under the California traffic code.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> "Ryan Cousineau" <rcou...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:rcousine-8D4EA0.16054201112009@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
> > In article
> > <16b1497c-17da-4fec...@15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
> > Anton Berlin <truth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In a head to head test and in normal conditions a bike should be able
> >> to stop faster than a car.
> >>
> >> But that includes that the rider has both hands on the bars (and
> >> brakes) which is hard to do when you're flipping someone off.
> >>
> >> At 50 kmh
> >>
> >> http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/brakes2.html
> >>
> >> Bike stops in 10 meters
> >>
> >> http://www.forensicdynamics.com/stopdistcalc
> >>
> >> Car stops in 14 meters.
> >>
> >> I hate proving Kunich wrong (again) at the expense of proving Magilla
> >> right.
> >>
> >> But Kunich may be right on an empirical basis. It make take several
> >> hundred meters to slow his fat ass to a stop.
> >>
> >> Besides this is all theory as we know Kunich has never gone 30 mph on
> >> a bike.
> >
> > The missing factor is essentially reaction time, which probably explains
> > how Dr. Evil managed to whomp two riders with his trunk.
> >
So you would rather have a car run over your hand than a bicycle with a 150
pound rider on it? According to you, you would, because a car has "more
square inches of rubber on the road per lb."
I'll be more than happy to be the car driver in that experiment. Let's meet
at the Saulsalito cafe, tomorrow afternoon. Bring your health insurance ID
card.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
So you're telling me a 3,500 lb. car can completely move over in front of 2
cyclists and that the cyclists would have "no time" to react. I hate to tell
you, Tom, but to move a vehicle from not being front of 2 cyclists to being
completely in front of the cyclists takes TIME. There was plenty of time for
the cyclists to react. Yet according to the GPS, they couldn't even slow down
to less than 30 mph, which means they likely never even grabbed a brake lever.
Probably because they were flipping off the driver. Now Ron "Kiefel" Peterson
has a Michael Jackson nose.
Magilla
Donald Munro
>> and the value is 9.806 65 m /s^2 exactly.
Susan Walker wrote:
> Depends.
MagillaGorilla
> On Nov 1, 5:50�pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > However as we all know it's more prudent to run over cyclists from
> > behind if you want to avoid the legal tangles.
> >
> > In fact it might be one of the easiest ways on the planet to kill
> > someone without consequences.
>
> I respectfully disagree. My impression, based upon an experience I
> had, is that it would be easy for the driver of a motorized vehicle to
> do insure damage by pulling closely in front of a paceline or similar
> group of cyclists, hitting the brakes and causing the front riders to
> also hit their brakes. This causes the following riders to plow into
> the leading riders and if done properly, causes them all to crash in a
> nice pileup. If executed by a skilled perpetrator there need not be
> any contact between the car and riders and the driver can depart with
> no physical evidence of any involvement. After all, a broken rear
> window and/or blood is far too messy.
>
> In the LA road rage trial, relative braking distances and/or
> capabilities of bikes vs. cars is a red herring thrown in by sleazy
> defense counsel trying to divert the jury's attention from the fact
> that the dear doctor performed a deliberate and illegal act which
> caused exactly the illegal results which might have been expected.
>
> DR
So riddle me this, jackass...how come this cop wasn't charged with even
careless driving?
http://www.kold.com/global/story.asp?s=7959848
Thanks,
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
DirtRoadie wrote:
> On Nov 1, 5:50�pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > However as we all know it's more prudent to run over cyclists from
> > behind if you want to avoid the legal tangles.
> >
> > In fact it might be one of the easiest ways on the planet to kill
> > someone without consequences.
>
> I respectfully disagree. My impression, based upon an experience I
> had, is that it would be easy for the driver of a motorized vehicle to
> do insure damage by pulling closely in front of a paceline or similar
> group of cyclists, hitting the brakes and causing the front riders to
> also hit their brakes. This causes the following riders to plow into
> the leading riders and if done properly, causes them all to crash in a
> nice pileup.
Most cyclists in group rides are spazzes and are well capable of crashing
thesmelves without anyone doing anything. Haven't you ever watched the
Tour de France? Half those Euro guys have no idea what the fuck they are
doing. Some of the most fucked up riders I've ever seen are in the pro
ranks.
> If executed by a skilled perpetrator there need not be
> any contact between the car and riders and the driver can depart with
> no physical evidence of any involvement. After all, a broken rear
> window and/or blood is far too messy.
>
> In the LA road rage trial, relative braking distances and/or
> capabilities of bikes vs. cars is a red herring thrown in by sleazy
> defense counsel trying to divert the jury's attention from the fact
> that the dear doctor performed a deliberate and illegal act which
> caused exactly the illegal results which might have been expected.
>
> DR
You mean the OJ Simpson jury or the Robert Blake jury?
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
Yes, I believe I can stop a bike from 50 mph in about 94 feet. You're
talking about maximum braking effort here, not some avg. effort. It
technically wouldn't even be safe to conduct such a braking experiment
because bikes don't have ABS and you would almost have to lock the wheels
up in order to see where the limit would be.
So I would not expect anyone to stop at that distance in any little Johnny
Carson Valley Rd. test. This is a maximum braking effort where it would
be dangerous to actually do. And anyone who would do it on their road bike
is probably too fucking stupid to do it correctly.
But the test does not assume you would be doing it on a descent either.
Thanks,
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
"b...@mambo.ucolick.org" wrote:
On what basis do you come to the definitive conclusion that "everyone" who
"thinks about this" says that a bike "can't do" 0.85 g's?
Who the fuck knows what 0.85g is on their bike? Are you a douchebag or
something? Plus, the fact that you use positive G's to indicate
deceleration when only negative G's would apply gives me tremendous
consternation that you're a jackass.
You people better start cleaning up your act in here or I'm gonna go
chimp-face on you.
>
> Most people agree that just from geometry (height of
> the center of mass relative to how far forward the front
> wheel contact patch), a bike is limited to at most
> 0.6 g deceleration, or 5.9 m/s^2.
"Most people agree"...WRONG. most people have no fucking clue what .6 vs.
1.3 G's on a bike is. I just love how you claim that people know the
difference between G forces measured in the hundredths of a G! You've got
to be kidding me with this bullshit sales pitch, Jimmy Mays.
>
>
> If you use 0.6 g to calculate the stopping distance
> from 30 mph, it's 15.2 meters. And that is assuming
> absolutely perfect conditions and flat ground,
> not down hill, which makes the endo problem worse.
>
> So no, a bike cannot stop faster than a car.
>
> Ben
Yeah, like you really proved it with statements like "most people agree" and
declaing what the maximum deceleration is on a bike without showing how you
came up with those numbers.
Nice fucking "data." (your own declarations that show no work)
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
Hey dumbass,
When you brake hard, your suppose to transfer your weight as far rearward as
possible in a way that is proportional to the braking effort. You don't just sit
on your seat like a Liz Hatch dodo bird and then wonder why you go over your
bars.
You people better stop talking like children.
Magilla
Paul B. Anders
Cool, then I'm sure you're willing to prove it. And like you said,
downhill isn't the way to go, You're a pro, so you have access to
motorpacing, just have your guy pace you to 50 mph, and get one of
your friends to shoot it on the Flip video his dad bought for him.
Now, since you're so sure you can do it, you can really rub our faces
in it by painting a white starting line, and then positioning a "nice
Infiinti" 95 feet away, so that you've got an additional 1 foot of
stopping distance.
This will make a great Youtube video. I'll bet you'll get over a
million hits when people see how this turns out.
Brad Anders
Michael Press
Susan Walker <myful...@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote:
No, it does not.
--
Michael Press
bjwe...@gmail.com
> "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" wrote:
> >
> > BTW, the 0.6 g number isn't magical, it's just based
> > on the angle from your center of mass to the front
> > contact patch. If the center of mass is around your
> > belly button, then (on my bike) the height off the ground
> > is about 1.2 m and the horizontal distance to the
> > contact patch is about 0.75 m. The geometry of the
> > opposing torques from deceleration and gravity means
> > that the bike starts to endo when the deceleration is
> > more than (0.75/1.2) ~ 0.63 g. All fairly approximate.
>
> > Ben
>
> Hey dumbass,
>
> When you brake hard, your suppose to transfer your weight as far rearward as
> possible in a way that is proportional to the braking effort. You don't just sit
> on your seat like a Liz Hatch dodo bird and then wonder why you go over your
> bars.
>
> You people better stop talking like children.
Moron,
Put down the road bike and say Sir when you
speak to your betters.
Unlike you, I used my MTB for more than riding
into the woods to smoke dope, and know about
shifting your weight back. It's a great idea, but
you can't really get more than an extra 5-10 cm
back. To get any further back, you have to push
your monkey ass so far back it is off the seat,
your fat master aerobelly is resting on the seat,
your useless gonads are all the way behind the
saddle and your ass is close to rubbing the rear
tire.
This is doable on an MTB, but if you can do
it easily on a road bike and get more than 10cm
of shift, your bars are too close, your saddle isn't
high enough, and you normally ride with your knees
sticking out like a newbie century rider or half-triathlon
dork that is still worried about being able to put a
foot on the ground without shifting his ass from
the saddle when stopping at traffic lights. You
probably still worry abut falling down when you can't
clip out of your pedals too.
Shifting your weight is good for marginal traction
situations like pointing your bike downhill on dirt
and acting out that Missy Giove fantasy of yours
(and I don't want to hear about your or Bruce's other
Missy Giove fantasies). It is not going to save you
from malevolent ER doctors driving penis-compensator
sportscars.
So let me rephrase my statement. _I_ can't
stop a bike faster than a car. _You_, on the other
hand, are such a crap descender that you can't
get the bike up to the same speed as a car
to begin with, so the point is moot. "Moot" is a
fancy English word that means it doesn't matter
to monkeys because they have already been
distracted by their own feces.
With kindest regards,
Ben
bjwe...@gmail.com
> "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" wrote:
> >
> > the center of mass relative to how far forward the front
> > wheel contact patch), a bike is limited to at most
> > 0.6 g deceleration, or 5.9 m/s^2.
>
> "Most people agree"...WRONG. most people have no fucking clue what .6 vs.
> 1.3 G's on a bike is. I just love how you claim that people know the
> difference between G forces measured in the hundredths of a G! You've got
> to be kidding me with this bullshit sales pitch, Jimmy Mays.
Chimp Chump,
I see you found my post where I explained that
this is due to simple geometry: the vertical distance
from your center of mass to the ground is larger
than the horizontal distance from your center of
mass to the front contact patch. That sets the
ratio of torques and is where the ~0.6 factor comes
from.
The rest is just you being embarrassed because
you believed the online calculator (which showed
less of its reasoning than I did) even though it
gave a result that is unphysical.
>
>
> > If you use 0.6 g to calculate the stopping distance
> > from 30 mph, it's 15.2 meters. And that is assuming
> > absolutely perfect conditions and flat ground,
> > not down hill, which makes the endo problem worse.
>
> > So no, a bike cannot stop faster than a car.
>
> > Ben
>
> Yeah, like you really proved it with statements like "most people agree" and
> declaing what the maximum deceleration is on a bike without showing how you
> came up with those numbers.
>
> Nice fucking "data." (your own declarations that show no work)
It's not data. It's reasoning. Try it sometime.
Ben
Donald Munro
> Cool, then I'm sure you're willing to prove it. And like you said,
> downhill isn't the way to go, You're a pro, so you have access to
> motorpacing, just have your guy pace you to 50 mph, and get one of
> your friends to shoot it on the Flip video his dad bought for him.
> Now, since you're so sure you can do it, you can really rub our faces
> in it by painting a white starting line, and then positioning a "nice
> Infiinti" 95 feet away, so that you've got an additional 1 foot of
> stopping distance.
>
> This will make a great Youtube video. I'll bet you'll get over a
> million hits when people see how this turns out.
Yes but does his team have a healthcare plan or will he have to ask Liz
Hatch for a contribution towards the hospital bill ?
MagillaGorilla
Hey dumbo,
In a maximum braking effort, you transfer your weight as far back and as low as
possible. You bury your head into your stem...you even your pedals so no leg is
higher than it has to be....you push your entire center of mass down into your
top tube. All of this is done instinctually and in a fraction of a second. So
all your numbers are wrong.
What you are talking about is the physics of how a fucking Cat. 5 girl brakes her
bike on the Saulsalito Kenny Pap Smear group ride and then crashes into 6 riders
in front of her while claiming she "couldn't stop in time."
That's not how I stop my bike if I need to dig deep into the pro suitcase of
courage.
In fact, I would say a good proportion of maximum braking effort comes not from
how hard or quick you pull on the brake levers, but how quickly, how low, and how
rearward you shift your weight.
Your equation treats one of the most important aspects of maximum braking (i.e.
the lowering and shifting of center of mass rearward) as being a constant instead
of a rather large variable. That's the fundamental mistake of your equation.
You wrote the equation for how Liz Hatch stops her bike, and not for how the
monkey stops his bike.
QID.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
"Paul B. Anders" wrote:
It would be very difficult to precisely measure the stopping distance because
how do you measure exactly where the onset of braking was applied without
guessing? Actually, I suppose it could be done to a reasonable degree of
certainty, but you'd have to trust me as to the mark on the road where I said
I applied the brakes.
Also, I would never do a maximum braking effort because you would run the risk
of going over the bars or locking your front/rear wheel up and sliding out. I
would only do a max effort braking if I had to do it to avoid being seriously
injured - i.e. hitting a guardrail or cross-traffic. So you'd have to give me
that safety fudge factor and allow for say a 90% brake effort of around 110
feet for 50 mph. I would be willing to shoot for that stopping distance. If
I can do 110 safely, then 94 is really not a far fetch if you had to risk it
all to save your life.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
Can you believe that...Liz Hatch thinking that her team would foot her
medical bills when it's not in her contract? That chick is not lucid.
I'm on the edge of my seat to find out which team signed this train wreck
for 2010. It should be coming any week now.....the excitement is killing
me.
Magilla
RicodJour
>
> Also, I would never do a maximum braking effort because you would run the risk
> of going over the bars or locking your front/rear wheel up and sliding out. I
> would only do a max effort braking if I had to do it to avoid being seriously
> injured - i.e. hitting a guardrail or cross-traffic.
I am truly impressed with the articulation you are able to derive with
your nether fundamental orifice, but you're still talking out yer
ass. You argue that maximum braking would stop a cyclist faster than
a car (ignoring reaction time entirely, which makes your contention
totally without merit), then argue that maximum braking is dangerous
and just as likely to launch the cyclist.
Well done! Remember to wipe next time.
R
RicodJour
>
> In a maximum braking effort, you transfer your weight as far back and as low as
> possible. You bury your head into your stem...you even your pedals so no leg is
> higher than it has to be....you push your entire center of mass down into your
> top tube.
"No leg"? Shouldn't that be neither leg? I always have one leg
higher than the others when I'm riding.
I have a question, Sparky - how long would you estimate it would take
a skilled cyclist to do the transfer weight/bury head/calibrate legs/
push mass down thing? This isn't a picture flip book - there's time
involved. Give me your best wild-assed guesstimate and let's see how
that affects stopping distance at 30 MPH.
And, if you would be so kind, please tell me who would lower their
head to the level of the trunk of a stopped car as they were about to
slam into the back of it at 30 MPH. Seems to me a sane person
wouldn't believe the helmet conferred invulnerability and would try to
protect their head.
R
Joe
"RicodJour" <rico...@worldemail.com> wrote in message
news:ff874652-df50-42d1...@f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
R
Well geez Ricod, if you're gonna apply logic and stuff, all bets are
off..... lol
RicodJour
> "RicodJour" <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote in message
> On Nov 4, 7:29 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In a maximum braking effort, you transfer your weight as far back and as
> > low as
> > possible. You bury your head into your stem...you even your pedals so no
> > leg is
> > higher than it has to be....you push your entire center of mass down into
> > your top tube.
>
> "No leg"? Shouldn't that be neither leg? I always have one leg
> higher than the others when I'm riding.
>
> I have a question, Sparky - how long would you estimate it would take
> a skilled cyclist to do the transfer weight/bury head/calibrate legs/
> push mass down thing? This isn't a picture flip book - there's time
> involved. Give me your best wild-assed guesstimate and let's see how
> that affects stopping distance at 30 MPH.
>
> And, if you would be so kind, please tell me who would lower their
> head to the level of the trunk of a stopped car as they were about to
> slam into the back of it at 30 MPH. Seems to me a sane person
> wouldn't believe the helmet conferred invulnerability and would try to
> protect their head.
>
>
> off..... lol
I don't want to be too hard on Magritte, but I suspect that he did
sustain a head injury, probably due to riding too close to some girl's
ass he was trying to sniff (close as he ever got to a pussy), which
would explain his hating on Liz Hatch. It's clear he was wearing a
helmet on that little bus for most of his formative years.
R
MagillaGorilla
Ummm, yes, we would "ignore reaction time entirely" since to not assume that would
be idiotic. And two, I love how you and everyone else talks about a bike not being
able to stop faster than a "car," but not once...NOT FUCKING ONCE....do you queers
even explain that stopping distances vary widely between all makes and models of
cars and that for some bizarre reason, this FACT does not seem to bother you since
you continue to refer to a generic "car" in your supposed "scientific" analysis
with a just-as-generic "bike."
You people don't even know what the fuck you are debating because you never
established what model/make car or bike you are comparing, yet this does not stop
you from arguing vehemently that "a bike" can't stop faster than "a car."
The word "bike" not only means a $6,000 race bike but also means a $275 Walmart
Redneck Racer. You can't just use the word "bike" when talking about performance
anymore than a car.
But since you all have been jerking yourselves off using these non-descript terms,
and I'm the only one who seems to notice these little poignant details, it means
you're all full of shit.
Many of you have fatal monkey bites from me by now and soon the Ebola will set
in...
Magilla
Paul B. Anders
Don't forget that with a modern car with ABS, any dimwit can execute
maximal braking with minimal skill, any time they choose. Not quite
the same situation for a cyclist, is it?
There's theory, there's experiment, and then there's practice. I
submit that while in theory bicycle could stop in a distance close to
that of a car (and from my take on the theory, certainly not in
significantly less distance), that it's a difficult and dangerous
experiment from any significant speed to attempt, and that in real-
world practice, accounting for reaction time, body positioning, hand
position, road conditions, etc., that bikes take a hell of a lot
longer to stop than you'd expect.
Brad Anders
MagillaGorilla
RicodJour wrote:
> On Nov 4, 7:29�am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > In a maximum braking effort, you transfer your weight as far back and as low as
> > possible. �You bury your head into your stem...you even your pedals so no leg is
> > higher than it has to be....you push your entire center of mass down into your
> > top tube.
>
> "No leg"? Shouldn't that be neither leg? I always have one leg
> higher than the others when I'm riding.
Sausalito cafe, Friday, 3 p.m. Be there, English Teacher.
>
>
> I have a question, Sparky - how long would you estimate it would take
> a skilled cyclist to do the transfer weight/bury head/calibrate legs/
> push mass down thing? This isn't a picture flip book - there's time
> involved. Give me your best wild-assed guesstimate and let's see how
> that affects stopping distance at 30 MPH.
Less than 1 second. Never timed it though.
>
>
> And, if you would be so kind, please tell me who would lower their
> head to the level of the trunk of a stopped car as they were about to
> slam into the back of it at 30 MPH.
A person who doesn't want to hit it?
> Seems to me a sane person
> wouldn't believe the helmet conferred invulnerability and would try to
> protect their head.
>
> R
Despite it seemingly being the most non-intuitive thing to do, putting your head down
will protect it the most because it will lower your CoG and allow you to grab more
front brake. If, at the last moment, you felt your head was going to impact an
immovable object at that same level, you would definitely want to move it
instinctively and protect your head with your hands/arms and make initial contact
with your shoulder almost like a football player does a block tackle in order to
dissipate most of the impact energy over your shoulder and scapular area.
If the object you were going to hit at a considerable speed (say, over 15 mph after
max braking) were a concrete bridge abutment, you would be best off inducing an
intentional low side crash after bleeding off most of your energy (speed). I've seen
that done at 55 mph. A body being dragged on grass or dirt has a very high
coefficient of friction.
#1 rule is bleed off most of your energy as fast as you can. And keeping your weight
as low as possible will allow you to grab more front brake and grab it harder. Your
front brake does around 70% of the stopping at high speed.
Magilla
RicodJour
> RicodJour wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 7:42 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Also, I would never do a maximum braking effort because you would run the risk
> > > of going over the bars or locking your front/rear wheel up and sliding out. I
> > > would only do a max effort braking if I had to do it to avoid being seriously
> > > injured - i.e. hitting a guardrail or cross-traffic.
>
> > I am truly impressed with the articulation you are able to derive with
> > your nether fundamental orifice, but you're still talking out yer
> > ass. You argue that maximum braking would stop a cyclist faster than
> > a car (ignoring reaction time entirely, which makes your contention
> > totally without merit), then argue that maximum braking is dangerous
> > and just as likely to launch the cyclist.
>
> > Well done! Remember to wipe next time.
>
>
> be idiotic. And two, I love how you and everyone else talks about a bike not being
> able to stop faster than a "car," but not once...NOT FUCKING ONCE....do you queers
> even explain that stopping distances vary widely between all makes and models of
> cars and that for some bizarre reason, this FACT does not seem to bother you since
> you continue to refer to a generic "car" in your supposed "scientific" analysis
> with a just-as-generic "bike."
>
> You people don't even know what the fuck you are debating because you never
> established what model/make car or bike you are comparing, yet this does not stop
> you from arguing vehemently that "a bike" can't stop faster than "a car."
>
> The word "bike" not only means a $6,000 race bike but also means a $275 Walmart
> Redneck Racer. You can't just use the word "bike" when talking about performance
> anymore than a car.
>
> But since you all have been jerking yourselves off using these non-descript terms,
> and I'm the only one who seems to notice these little poignant details, it means
> you're all full of shit.
At least you're back to your dodge and weave bullshit comfort zone.
Single case in question, single car, two experienced guys on bikes,
psychotic behind the wheel of the car, one road the psychotic thinks
he owns, one accident, two injuries, one guy going to jail.
You can plug in the numbers...excuse me, could...excuse me, should -
ah, who the fuck am I kidding? Ben cleaned your cage for you on the
physics, Michael bitched slap you with vehicle code, and numerous
people pelted you with rotten fruit on your atrocious logic.
On a good day you'd be the slow monkey, on the outside, looking
in...just like here. Anyway, you grow tiresome as you have nothing to
add. Sorry Zippy. Better luck next thread!
R
MagillaGorilla
You really think I secretly yearn for the Lizard and am just jealous or
something? Dude, I cannot tell you how simply not true that is. I am not
attracted to her at all. I don't think she's a bad looking girl at all, but I
am totally not into her in any way. I wouldn't even say she is in the top 20 of
the most attractive women cyclists in U.S. chicaton.
The only reason I rag on her is because she refers to herself as a "professional
cyclist" and she really pushes the "I'm hot" angle to the point where it's in my
face when I'm just trying to innocently brush up on the new curves in the
women's peloton.
I think Hatch would be better off filling out the application at Hooter's and
stopping this "professional cyclist" nonsense. I mean you don't see Paris
Hilton going around trying to convince the world she had a part in engineering
the new Boeing Dreamliner, do you?
Magilla
Anton Berlin
> Michael Press wrote:
> > and the value is 9.806 65 m /s^2 exactly.
>
> Depends.
Sorry Susan but even if an old person craps in their Depends it still
falls at9.806 65 m /s^2 exactly
RicodJour
> On Nov 3, 6:48 am, Susan Walker <myfulln...@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote:
> > Michael Press wrote:
>
>
> > Depends.
>
> Sorry Susan but even if an old person craps in their Depends it still
> falls at 9.806 65 m/s^2 exactly
I have little energy before my afternoon Oreos and milk, so maybe you
can help me. Somebody posted a link to an article on how gravity is
not uniform everywhere on Earth. Would you mind explaining to a low
blood sugar individual how gravity can be a constant if the
gravitational force varies from place to place? Thanks.
R
PS I had to correct three typos in the three sentences/clauses that I
quoted. I am not the fookin' RBR proofreader! Correct the typos
before they hit my screen. I found it particularly interesting that
Antoine Ono (loved you in Deep Space Nine BTW) had to copy and paste
Michael's numbers - exactly, including the odd spacing and typos.
This shit _counts_ people! You will be graded before the Lord (me)
and found wanting! You do NOT want to be found wanting - believe me.
PPS I also get a little irritable when the blood sugar is down.
PPPS Fuck you if you have a problem with that.
z
You mean when tuba players run over a girl's neck.
Susan Walker
It depends. g0 is meaningless.
bjwe...@gmail.com
Christ, man, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.
This is so lame the Union of Face-Ripping Chimps
Internationale is thinking of kicking you out because they've
finally figured out you're just a soft-fingered human.
Putting your head down is for sprinting into giant
Coke cans, not for maximum braking. Any extra
braking effect is purely psychological, like closing
your eyes as you're about to hit a bump. Throwing your
weight back actually momentarily pushes the bike
forward. For fuck's sake, even George Hincapie knows
that - it's how he won Gent-Wevelgem by a fractional
tire width, throwing the bike in the sprint.
Go play your tuba and ride over Cat 5 girls' necks
with your stopping technique.
Ben
My new stopping technique is unstoppable.
Michael Press
Susan Walker <myful...@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote:
g_n = 9.80665 m /s^2 exactly.
(space removed because R. is cranky)
--
Michael Press
Susan Walker
> Susan Walker wrote:
>> It depends. g0 is meaningless.
>
> g_n = 9.80665 m /s^2 exactly.
g0 is another name for g_n. It is meaningless.
RicodJour
> In article <4af20900$0$83243$e4fe5...@news.xs4all.nl>,
> Susan Walker <myfulln...@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Anton Berlin wrote:
> > > On Nov 3, 6:48 am, Susan Walker <myfulln...@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote:
> > >> Michael Press wrote:
> > >>> and the value is 9.806 65 m /s^2 exactly.
> > >> Depends.
>
> > > Sorry Susan but even if an old person craps in their Depends it still
> > > falls at9.806 65 m /s^2 exactly
>
> > It depends. g0 is meaningless.
>
> g_n = 9.80665 m /s^2 exactly.
>
> (space removed because R. is cranky)
Thank you. Now I'm only half-cranky. Please remove the other
extraneous space as it removes meaning from your units and insults
graphic artists everywhere.
I wrote earlier:
"Somebody posted a link to an article on how gravity is
not uniform everywhere on Earth. Would you mind explaining to a low
blood sugar individual how gravity can be a constant if the
gravitational force varies from place to place?"
While you are repeating (why I am not sure) what the standard constant
is, would you explain why you seem to be taking umbrage at gravity
itself not being a constant? Susan's "depends" seems to have set you
off.
Do we need gravity to have five decimal point precision even if it
doesn't? Contact Google. They'd probably hook the not-so constant
constant up to Google Earth so you could have five decimal precision
anywhere you go.
R
RicodJour
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the First Annual Gravitational
Constant Context Contest. It promises to be a wonderful FAGCCC this
year with our two contestants battling it out with their frequent
ejaculations.
"Exactly!"
"Meaningless!"
"Yo Mama!"
Ha ha ha! You've just got to love the fire and articulation our
contestants bring to the fray!
First up, the opening tentative moves of You've Got Pull, followed by
the rebuttal phase, Lens THIS!, and finishing up with Who's Your
Daddy, G?*
Next up - Mauling Michael.
R
* The Yankees, of course.
Michael Press
Susan Walker <myful...@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote:
On the contrary it has meaning.
It means 9.80665 m /s^2 exactly.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
<722edfd9-3398-421e...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
RicodJour <rico...@worldemail.com> wrote:
g_n is defined to be 9.80665 m/s^2.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_gravity>
--
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla
Riddle me this Einstein - was Michael Rasmussen also "experienced?"
>
> psychotic behind the wheel of the car, one road the psychotic thinks
> he owns, one accident, two injuries, one guy going to jail.
If it was an "accident," why is someone going to jail?
>
>
> You can plug in the numbers...excuse me, could...excuse me, should -
> ah, who the fuck am I kidding? Ben cleaned your cage for you on the
> physics, Michael bitched slap you with vehicle code, and numerous
> people pelted you with rotten fruit on your atrocious logic.
>
You evidently didn't see my response to Michael's little vehicle code post, did you?
Here check it out:
http://www.nntpnews.net/f4566/dr-thompson-i-presume-12143352/index5.html
>
>
> On a good day you'd be the slow monkey, on the outside, looking
> in...just like here. Anyway, you grow tiresome as you have nothing to
> add. Sorry Zippy. Better luck next thread!
>
> R
You should go to college and then come back here and post.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
Those 2 cyclists who ran into Dr. Thompson are fucking spazzes.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
"b...@mambo.ucolick.org" wrote:
No asswipe. Putting your head down lowers your center of gravity, and shifting your
weight rearward helps put more weight over your rear tire and allows for your front
brake to be gabbed harder before it will flip you. It also helps make your rear brake
more effective.
It's a physics equation, jackass. Has nothing to do with my opinion. Where did you
go to college with that kind of attitude?
Magilla
RicodJour
>
> Those 2 cyclists who ran into Dr. Thompson are fucking spazzes.
You mean Mrs. New Bitch Thompson.
R
Fred Fredburger
Why didn't someone think to do this with pi? "3" is easy to remember.
MagillaGorilla
I love how you talk up a big game about "justice" and then laugh about
prison rape. And then you think this makes you look intelligent.
Dude. You need to go to college.
Magilla
thirty-six
<Fred.Fredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article
Is the only one you need to fit an iron tyre.
thirty-six
> On Nov 3, 6:34 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" wrote:
>
> > > BTW, the 0.6 g number isn't magical, it's just based
> > > on the angle from your center of mass to the front
> > > contact patch. If the center of mass is around your
> > > belly button, then (on my bike) the height off the ground
> > > is about 1.2 m and the horizontal distance to the
> > > contact patch is about 0.75 m. The geometry of the
> > > opposing torques from deceleration and gravity means
> > > that the bike starts to endo when the deceleration is
> > > more than (0.75/1.2) ~ 0.63 g. All fairly approximate.
>
> > > Ben
>
>
> > When you brake hard, your suppose to transfer your weight as far rearward as
> > possible in a way that is proportional to the braking effort. You don't just sit
> > on your seat like a Liz Hatch dodo bird and then wonder why you go over your
> > bars.
>
> > You people better stop talking like children.
>
> Moron,
>
> Put down the road bike and say Sir when you
> speak to your betters.
>
> Unlike you, I used my MTB for more than riding
> into the woods to smoke dope, and know about
> shifting your weight back. It's a great idea, but
> you can't really get more than an extra 5-10 cm
> back. To get any further back, you have to push
> your monkey ass so far back it is off the seat,
> your fat master aerobelly is resting on the seat,
> your useless gonads are all the way behind the
> saddle and your ass is close to rubbing the rear
> tire.
>
> This is doable on an MTB, but if you can do
> it easily on a road bike and get more than 10cm
> of shift, your bars are too close, your saddle isn't
> high enough, and you normally ride with your knees
> sticking out like a newbie century rider or half-triathlon
> dork that is still worried about being able to put a
> foot on the ground without shifting his ass from
> the saddle when stopping at traffic lights. You
> probably still worry abut falling down when you can't
> clip out of your pedals too.
>
> Shifting your weight is good for marginal traction
> situations like pointing your bike downhill on dirt
> and acting out that Missy Giove fantasy of yours
> (and I don't want to hear about your or Bruce's other
> Missy Giove fantasies). It is not going to save you
> from malevolent ER doctors driving penis-compensator
> sportscars.
>
> So let me rephrase my statement. _I_ can't
> stop a bike faster than a car. _You_, on the other
> hand, are such a crap descender that you can't
> get the bike up to the same speed as a car
> to begin with, so the point is moot. "Moot" is a
> fancy English word that means it doesn't matter
> to monkeys because they have already been
> distracted by their own feces.
>
> With kindest regards,
> Ben
bjwe...@gmail.com
Soft-fingered human,
What you were arguing is that the dynamic effect
of shifting your body - what you referred to as "the shifting
of center of mass ... being a rather large variable" -
is important. That's clearly BS because the dynamic
effect of shifting your weight back is to push the bike
forward, as in throwing your bike in a sprint. Further,
the entire braking effort as you slide to a panic stop
takes longer than the body shift, so for most of the
braking time your body position is pretty static, as
far back as you can get. We just have to consider the
static effect of shifting your position.
Putting your head down shifts your center of mass
hardly at all, unless you are shaped like a bobble-head
doll. It's purely psychological. Shifting your weight
rearward helps but by only 10 cm or so, because
you can't get any further back unless your bars are
set up way too close to the saddle. Having your weight
rearward is important but your rear brake still doesn't
do much in a panic stop. Grab it anyway, but don't
expect it to do anything as all your weight shifts to
the front.
It's funny you speak of physics equations. Write the
equation down so we can see.
As for my attitude, I didn't get it in college.
I got it in Airco Technical Monkey-Shaming Institute.
Ben
Howard Kveck
RicodJour <rico...@worldemail.com> wrote:
If you want to get Kunich in on this, you must rephrase that as "Who's Your Daddy,
Gee?"
--
tanx,
Howard
Caught playing safe
It's a bored game
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Howard Kveck
"b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Having your weight
> rearward is important but your rear brake still doesn't
> do much in a panic stop. Grab it anyway, but don't
> expect it to do anything as all your weight shifts to
> the front.
Which is one of the reasons Campy has a dual pivot brake (clamps hard for good
braking) for the front and a single pivot one for the rear. The rear doesn't do that
much and you simply don't need that much braking power on the rim in the back.
Tom Kunich
news:YOURhoward-A1976...@news.giganews.com...
>
> Which is one of the reasons Campy has a dual pivot brake (clamps hard
> for good
> braking) for the front and a single pivot one for the rear. The rear
> doesn't do that
> much and you simply don't need that much braking power on the rim in the
> back.
(Eyes rolling!)
RicodJour
> RicodJour wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 7:11 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Those 2 cyclists who ran into Dr. Thompson are fucking spazzes.
>
> > You mean Mrs. New Bitch Thompson.
>
>
> prison rape. And then you think this makes you look intelligent.
Years ago my mother used to say to me, she'd say, "In this world,
Elwood, you must be" - she always called me Elwood - "In this world,
Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant." Well, for years I
was smart. I recommend pleasant. You may quote me.
- Elwood P. Dowd
I do not think a little prison time is adequate for Dr. PLEASE Use
Some Lube Thompson. I think having his hemorrhoids hammered would
knock some sense into him, and leave him with some scars - that's
justice. I'm more biblical, and slightly more twisted, than most -
and just honest about it, with which you seem to have some difficulty.
R
Howard Kveck
"Tom Kunich" <tku...@earthlink.net> wrote:
I see you're going to read that post and sneeringly respond to it yet ignore the
one where you were asked to post a link to one of Iran's leaders saying they wanted
to drop nuclear weapons on Israel. What a dork.
MagillaGorilla
Yes, I am aware of the Law of physics you point out (every reaction has an opposite and
equal reaction). Several things.... the CoG movement is more downward than rearward. Your
butt should never leave your seat because doing so would take weight off your rear wheel
that is transfered down through the seat stays (this helps prevent your rear wheel from.
In a bike throw (a slightly different movement), you allow yourself to completely slide off
the seat.
Second, the reason why you should still do this despite its known negative "slight bike
throw" effect that you point out is because the GAIN you get from your weight being shifted
rearward and lower is increased braking by an amount that offsets the loss from the
modified bike throw reaction. A bike throw only lasts a fraction of a second, but the
braking moment is 4-10 times that in length of time. And once your body is stationary and
rearward, the bike throw moment disappears and you will gain many feet in braking (perhaps
20-50?). And what's the loss from a modified bike throw...say 1-2 feet? So 40-2 feet = 38
feet gain in stoppage.
You people do the same thing when you talk about turns in a velodrome - you can't talk
about 1 physics effect in a turn while ignoring more significant ones. I am not sure what
the proportion of effect is from lowering your body weight vs. shifting it rearward. All I
know is you should do both. And if you plug that into the physics equation for a bike, it
will quantify it for you.
So when you are doing a max brake effort, you should immediately kiss the stem (go lower if
you can and push your trunk into your top tube) and lock your arms out in your drops while
pushing your butt as far back on the saddle as you can. It should resemble a bike throw
except you butt will never leave the saddle and you are of course grabbing the brakes.
> Further,
> the entire braking effort as you slide to a panic stop
> takes longer than the body shift, so for most of the
> braking time your body position is pretty static, as
> far back as you can get. We just have to consider the
> static effect of shifting your position.
Correct...once your body is static, the bike throw reaction disappears and you get the gain
from your CoG being lower and rearward throughout the duration of the braking.
>
>
> Putting your head down shifts your center of mass
> hardly at all, unless you are shaped like a bobble-head
> doll.
Not true. I said to shift your entire upper body downward - head shoulders, torso... your
face should be buried into the steam and your chest should be trying to mate with the top
tube. Imagine a time trial position where you are going 150 mph downhill and you want
minimal wind resistance. That's the position you want.
> It's purely psychological.
You spelled physics wrong.
> Shifting your weight
> rearward helps but by only 10 cm or so, because
> you can't get any further back unless your bars are
> set up way too close to the saddle.
I'd say about 6 inches rearward is about the most you're gonna get, correct. This is
really for high speed descent stops. But if you are doing a road race or training ride
with 55 mph long descents like Gila you should definitely be using a larger stem reach
anyway (say +4 cm over a cri bike) to aid not only for emergency braking, but for
aerodynamic tucks.
> Having your weight
> rearward is important but your rear brake still doesn't
> do much in a panic stop. Grab it anyway, but don't
> expect it to do anything as all your weight shifts to
> the front.
The rear brake does about 30% of your stopping whether you like it or not. It will do that
30% more effectively if you shift your weight rearward.
>
>
> It's funny you speak of physics equations. Write the
> equation down so we can see.
You're gonna make me break out the physics books from college that have been collecting
dust? Geez...I dunno man. I would do it if you looked like Petra Nemcova. Do you look
like her? You can even be a tranny - I don't give a fuck.
>
>
> As for my attitude, I didn't get it in college.
> I got it in Airco Technical Monkey-Shaming Institute.
>
> Ben
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
If you really want to increase the effectiveness and stability of your rear brake, you
should mount it to the frame on the FRONT of your seat stays, which is how your front
brake is mounted with respect to the rotation of the rim. What this does is cause the
brake caliper assembly to be pushed into the frame during the entire braking event.
But in standard rear brake mounts, the caliper's entire stability is only by the
mounting bolt and the caliper is bring pulled away from the frame.
Mounting your rear calipers to the front of the rear seat stays will aid in high speed
braking stability by a couple percent. The only reason it's not done like that for
most riders is because of aesthetics. Any mechanic or frame builder will tell you it's
not as good to mount the brake calipers where 99.99% of the people mount it.
Magilla
RicodJour
> > "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Having your weight
> > > rearward is important but your rear brake still doesn't
> > > do much in a panic stop. Grab it anyway, but don't
> > > expect it to do anything as all your weight shifts to
> > > the front.
>
> > Which is one of the reasons Campy has a dual pivot brake (clamps hard for good
> > braking) for the front and a single pivot one for the rear. The rear doesn't do that
> > much and you simply don't need that much braking power on the rim in the back.
>
> > --
> > tanx,
> > Howard
>
> > Caught playing safe
> > It's a bored game
>
> > remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
>
> If you really want to increase the effectiveness and stability of your rear brake, you
> should mount it to the frame on the FRONT of your seat stays, which is how your front
> brake is mounted with respect to the rotation of the rim.
That is not why a front brake is mounted in front of the fork.
> What this does is cause the
> brake caliper assembly to be pushed into the frame during the entire braking event.
That's not what's happening on the front brake, or the rear brake if
you move it to the front of the frame.
> But in standard rear brake mounts, the caliper's entire stability is only by the
> mounting bolt and the caliper is bring pulled away from the frame.
If there is a single mounting bolt, the same thing is happening
wherever the brake is located.
> Mounting your rear calipers to the front of the rear seat stays will aid in high speed
> braking stability by a couple percent. The only reason it's not done like that for
> most riders is because of aesthetics. Any mechanic or frame builder will tell you it's
> not as good to mount the brake calipers where 99.99% of the people mount it.
No, they won't tell you that - at least not for the reasons you
state. Your numbers are wrong, your theory is wrong, and your logic
curiously absent.
Stick to the dodging and weaving. It's what you do best.
R
thirty-six
> If you really want to increase the effectiveness and stability of your rear brake, you
> should mount it to the frame on the FRONT of your seat stays, which is how your front
> brake is mounted with respect to the rotation of the rim. What this does is cause the
> brake caliper assembly to be pushed into the frame during the entire braking event.
> But in standard rear brake mounts, the caliper's entire stability is only by the
> mounting bolt and the caliper is bring pulled away from the frame.
>
> Mounting your rear calipers to the front of the rear seat stays will aid in high speed
> braking stability by a couple percent. The only reason it's not done like that for
> most riders is because of aesthetics. Any mechanic or frame builder will tell you it's
> not as good to mount the brake calipers where 99.99% of the people mount it.
>
> Magilla
Huh? If anything you want the front brake behind the mounting so
that with typical rims which have a slight flare to their extremity
the brake pads will move towards the hubs so providing a more
controllable inverse servo. The negative servo effect already exists
with the rear brake and the consequences of a diving rear brake, with
the caliper jamming the tyre, are likely of little concern. Mudguards
will prevent wheel jamming with brake mount failure.
Fred Fredburger
You're my new hero.
William Asher
And you always claimed skills learned in rbt would never be applicable
anywhere else.
--
Bill Asher
Fred Fredburger
RBT? I thought he was channeling old Star Trek episodes. The "negative
servo" and "inverse servo" are things that should be said just prior to
"reversing the polarity". Does Scotty hang out in RBT?
William Asher
> William Asher wrote:
>>
>> And you always claimed skills learned in rbt would never be applicable
>> anywhere else.
>>
>
> RBT? I thought he was channeling old Star Trek episodes. The "negative
> servo" and "inverse servo" are things that should be said just prior to
> "reversing the polarity". Does Scotty hang out in RBT?
>
Scotty never really went in for techno-babble, that was more of a TNG
thing. So Geordi LaForge might have said something about the warp core
stability drive having an inverse servo coupling because the caliper arms
were mounting in front of the neutronium struts holding the axial bearings
for the plasma couplers to the antimatter chamber (in contrast to earlier
designs where the caliper arms were behind the neutronium struts, which led
to the less stable positive servo coupling, even with mudguards), Scotty
would just have said "Aye Captain, but the engines are going to overheat."
Or so I've heard anyway, I never watched either show.
--
Bill Asher
RicodJour
Don't admit shit like that in public, you anti-geek geek. I find
it...fascinating, that you know Geordi's name, and the correct
spelling, but you've never watched the show. Uh huh - no, seriously,
I'll pull out, you don't have to worry because the check is in the
mail and I've never lied in my life and I've never felt like this
before unless you count last week.
The algorithm is as such - three words strung together. Plasma
induction coil, or dilithium concentrator coupling. Three words - two
words just makes you sound stupid.
R
MagillaGorilla
You are totally wrong. I have yet to meet a single frame builder who would disagree with
what I wrote and I have had that conversation with several of them. Ask Lennard Zinn and I
am sure he will tell you what I told you.
You guys are seriously out of the loop.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
thirty-six wrote:
Jackass.
Shut up and listen.
In a typical rear brake mount, the directional rotation of the rear wheel pulls the brake
caliper away from the seat stays/frame via the mounting bolt during braking. If you mount
it on the opposite side, the rotational force of the rim (during braking) will cause the
caliper to be pushed into the frame, giving better stability.
Your front brake is mounted 'correctly' but the rear brake is opposite and only done that
way for aesthetics.
I can see you've never had any technical conversations with mechanics and frame builders. I
have yet to meet one that doesn't know this...And some do it. Here is one framebuilder who
does it (notice the rear brake caliper mounted on the front of the seat stays...this is the
same way your front bake is mounted on your fork and provides better stability)
http://i.pbase.com/o4/68/71868/1/55443037.1707038_IMG.JPG
http://www.campyonly.com/images/modbikes/2008/bike%201.jpg
Magilla
thirty-six
Huh? If anything you want the aluminium front caliper behind the
ferrous carbon crown so that with typical aluminium section rims which
have a slight flare to their extremity the retarding elastomer
controllers will move towards the central travellator bearing so
providing a more controllable inverse servo coupling. The negative
servo effect already exists with the rear retarding device and the
consequences of a diving rear brake, with the caliper jamming the air-
filled elastic bearings, are likely of little concern. Water
repelling covers will prevent wheel jamming with brake mount failure.
I preferred my first go.
William Asher
Yeah, well the stuff above was a test to see if you knew what you were
talking about because if you did, you would have asked which antimatter
chamber I was talking about, the regenerative amplification antimatter
chamber or the intertial subspace containment antimatter chamber. It makes
a difference. Or at least that's what I've heard. Around. You know.
--
Bill Asher
thirty-six
Does it, really?
> If you mount
> it on the opposite side, the rotational force of the rim (during braking) will cause the
> caliper to be pushed into the frame, giving better stability.
Really?
>
> Your front brake is mounted 'correctly' but the rear brake is opposite and only done that
> way for aesthetics.
Servicability!
>
> I can see you've never had any technical conversations with mechanics and frame builders. I
> have yet to meet one that doesn't know this...And some do it. Here is one framebuilder who
> does it (notice the rear brake caliper mounted on the front of the seat stays...this is the
> same way your front bake is mounted on your fork and provides better stability)
>
> http://i.pbase.com/o4/68/71868/1/55443037.1707038_IMG.JPGhttp://www.campyonly.com/images/modbikes/2008/bike%201.jpg
>
> Magilla
Mechanic/framebuilders use systems that work. I know two quite well
and have spoken to a handful of others over the years although never
about (bicycle) brake calipers. I had more important considerations
than this. Leaving components accessible allows for proper servicing
without frustrating access.
Anton Berlin
>
> - Show quoted text -
Maggie, if you can lock up either wheel and heat isn't a problem this
is a stupid argument to make Who gives a shit if a wheel locks up
by 300 or 303% ?
We all know best braking is just at the level under lock up.
RicodJour
>
> Maggie, if you can lock up either wheel and heat isn't a problem this
> is a stupid argument to make Who gives a shit if a wheel locks up
> by 300 or 303% ?
>
> We all know best braking is just at the level under lock up.
All of his arguments for the past week have been, at best, stupid.
It's time for a change in meds or some better weed, dude.
Hey Margaret, do me a favor, run this thread by RBT and let's see what
they have to day about you contention.
R
Fred Fredburger
Your second attempt has the advantage of including the word "retard".
But they're both very impressive.