Bicycle Stopping Distances
 

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.

Bicycle Stopping Distances
 

In article
,
Anton Berlin 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.

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 http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

Bicycle Stopping Distances
 

"Ryan Cousineau" wrote in message
]...
In article
,
Anton Berlin 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.

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.

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.

Bicycle Stopping Distances
 

On Nov 1, 6:05*pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article
,
*Anton Berlin 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.

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 /
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."- Hide quoted text -

- 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.

Bicycle Stopping Distances
 

On Nov 1, 6:50*pm, "Tom Kunich" wrote:
"Ryan Cousineau" wrote in message

]...





In article
,
Anton Berlin 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.

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.

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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Gee, where the **** did you get the idea G was gee?

Geesus ****ing christ you're an idiot.

Bicycle Stopping Distances
 

On Nov 1, 6:50*pm, "Tom Kunich" wrote:
"Ryan Cousineau" wrote in message

]...





In article
,
Anton Berlin 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.

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.

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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now that I am over laughing how stupid you are to put 'gee' I've
realized that every ****ing 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
****ing idiot on the planet that isn't being fed by an airplane
spoon. Or are you?

Bicycle Stopping Distances
 

On Nov 1, 8:20*pm, Anton Berlin wrote:
On Nov 1, 6:50*pm, "Tom Kunich" wrote:



"Ryan Cousineau" wrote in message

]...

In article
,
Anton Berlin 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.

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..

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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now that I am over laughing how stupid you are to put 'gee' I've
realized that every ****ing 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
****ing idiot on the planet that isn't being fed by an airplane
spoon. *Or are you?

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

Bicycle Stopping Distances
 

On Nov 1, 7:40*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 1, 8:20*pm, Anton Berlin wrote:





On Nov 1, 6:50*pm, "Tom Kunich" wrote:

"Ryan Cousineau" wrote in message

]...

In article
,
Anton Berlin 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.

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.

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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now that I am over laughing how stupid you are to put 'gee' I've
realized that every ****ing 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
****ing idiot on the planet that isn't being fed by an airplane
spoon. *Or are you?

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- Hide quoted text -

- 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 ****ing **** also.

Bicycle Stopping Distances
 

On Nov 1, 8:43*pm, Anton Berlin wrote:
On Nov 1, 7:40*pm, RicodJour wrote:



On Nov 1, 8:20*pm, Anton Berlin wrote:

On Nov 1, 6:50*pm, "Tom Kunich" wrote:

"Ryan Cousineau" wrote in message

]....

In article
,
Anton Berlin 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.

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.

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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now that I am over laughing how stupid you are to put 'gee' I've
realized that every ****ing 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
****ing idiot on the planet that isn't being fed by an airplane
spoon. *Or are you?

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- Hide quoted text -

- 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 ****ing **** also.

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

Bicycle Stopping Distances
 

In article ,
DirtRoadie wrote:

On Nov 1, 5:50*pm, "Tom Kunich" wrote:

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?

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?