Motorcycle Crash Debate!!
11-30-2009 | 06:54 PM
#21
Registered Member
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Re: Motorcycle Crash Debate!!
just watch these videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO-Kts7NoYk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boQONNXmr7w&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnuHL2JYmX4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRDR4...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHGk-v1kyrg&NR=1
and debate about the leathers, 300kph = 186mph
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gjXwQUz4vQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO-Kts7NoYk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boQONNXmr7w&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnuHL2JYmX4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRDR4...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHGk-v1kyrg&NR=1
and debate about the leathers, 300kph = 186mph
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gjXwQUz4vQ
Last edited by sir loin; 11-30-2009 at 07:04 PM.
11-30-2009 | 07:18 PM
#22
psycho jungle cat
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,124
Likes: 0
From: 757/910
Re: Motorcycle Crash Debate!!
For never having ridden he seems quite sure of his crash logic. As said before your bike will most likely slide farther than you once you're down, in my case I went down and by the time I stopped was a couple feet short of the guardrail(My bike however was against it). I dont want to be riding an out of control missile until it hits its target, it's not a car with crash zones and restraints/airbags.
11-30-2009 | 08:37 PM
#23
Boost is Better
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
From: Richmond area
Re: Motorcycle Crash Debate!!
Has your dad EVER watched motorcycle races? if not show him vids of crashes. They ALWAYS try to get away from the bike and i've seen someone slide for a good 15 seconds with leathers pushing the bike away while sitting on his ass sliding beside it. You could see him moving when the leather got hot but when they hit the sand the bike flipped like a raging bull. He got right up brushed himself off and got back on the bike and rode away.
Your dad is an idiot and obviosly has never ridden for good reason.
Sorry just being honest
Your dad is an idiot and obviosly has never ridden for good reason.
Sorry just being honest
11-30-2009 | 10:24 PM
#24
Registered member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 11,360
Likes: 0
From: Portugal
Re: Motorcycle Crash Debate!!
i hate when people with no knowledge or experince on a subject shoot off there mouth like they know it all
Like people talking about the military or the wars, unless your in it STFU and get out the way
Like people talking about the military or the wars, unless your in it STFU and get out the way
12-01-2009 | 11:29 AM
#25
Slow as Shit
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,172
Likes: 0
From: Short Pump
Re: Motorcycle Crash Debate!!
Ditch the bike. The bike might travel into something you do not want to hit or it could pin you into something making the situation worse or what could kill you.
My one crash, I let go of it and that was that.
My one crash, I let go of it and that was that.
12-01-2009 | 04:27 PM
#27
Registered Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
From: Raleigh, NC
Re: Motorcycle Crash Debate!!
Sorry for being the one to be a nerd.
But since I'm studying to become a physical chemist, I'll give a simple equation to prove a point. To keep it simple, the assumptions of this equation are:
(1)rider is wearing leathers
(2)same size contact patch between the ground and the bike, as between the ground and the rider
(3)the bike does not bounce, the rider is bouncing and in contact with the asphalt roughly half the time
(4)no rotational motion for the rider while in continuous contact with the ground (rotating while in the air does not apply to this)
(5)coefficient of friction between leather and asphalt being about three times that between plastic and asphalt (looked through some tables, came up with 0.2 for the bike plastics, 0.6 for the leather)
OK i had this all neatly written in an equation program but that didn't want to get onto here so I'll explain it. nice and simple though so its not bad
(Force of friction)=(mass)x(acceleration)
-(coefficient of friction)x(normal force)=(mass)x(acceleration)
-(coefficient of friction)x(9.8 <- this is gravity)x(mass)=(mass)x(acceleration)
(acceleration)=-(coefficient of friction)x(9.8)
the acceleration is directly correlated to the coefficient of friction, so it decelerates as a direct function of this.
By this logic the rider should decelerate 3x faster than the bike.
Due to assumption number 2, we'll cut that in half and say he decelerates (3/2)x faster than the bike.
Given the kinematic equations, distance traveled is directly related to acceleration, so the bike should slide (3/2)x farther than the rider. These are ideal conditions, and in reality there may be less of a difference.
Nevertheless, it is quite clear that the bike slides farther. Since things like curbs and ditches really fuck you up when you hit them, you wanna stop in as short a distance as possible in a crash. holding onto the bike will cause you to go further, and have a greater chance of hitting a stationary object and getting hurt.
To tie up loose ends, I'll deal with the assumptions.
(1)The leathers a rider is wearing are probably harder than the leather in coefficient of friction tables, so the coefficient of friction for the rider may be less
(2)I think it's reasonable to assume a similar size contact patch
(3)ditto
(4)if there were rotational motion it would cause the rider to go farther than in the ideal condition. However the weight would be concentrated towards the outside and he would have a fairly large moment of inertia, so I feel like he would dissipate kinetic energy at a reasonable rate.
(5)same as #1
But since I'm studying to become a physical chemist, I'll give a simple equation to prove a point. To keep it simple, the assumptions of this equation are:
(1)rider is wearing leathers
(2)same size contact patch between the ground and the bike, as between the ground and the rider
(3)the bike does not bounce, the rider is bouncing and in contact with the asphalt roughly half the time
(4)no rotational motion for the rider while in continuous contact with the ground (rotating while in the air does not apply to this)
(5)coefficient of friction between leather and asphalt being about three times that between plastic and asphalt (looked through some tables, came up with 0.2 for the bike plastics, 0.6 for the leather)
OK i had this all neatly written in an equation program but that didn't want to get onto here so I'll explain it. nice and simple though so its not bad
(Force of friction)=(mass)x(acceleration)
-(coefficient of friction)x(normal force)=(mass)x(acceleration)
-(coefficient of friction)x(9.8 <- this is gravity)x(mass)=(mass)x(acceleration)
(acceleration)=-(coefficient of friction)x(9.8)
the acceleration is directly correlated to the coefficient of friction, so it decelerates as a direct function of this.
By this logic the rider should decelerate 3x faster than the bike.
Due to assumption number 2, we'll cut that in half and say he decelerates (3/2)x faster than the bike.
Given the kinematic equations, distance traveled is directly related to acceleration, so the bike should slide (3/2)x farther than the rider. These are ideal conditions, and in reality there may be less of a difference.
Nevertheless, it is quite clear that the bike slides farther. Since things like curbs and ditches really fuck you up when you hit them, you wanna stop in as short a distance as possible in a crash. holding onto the bike will cause you to go further, and have a greater chance of hitting a stationary object and getting hurt.
To tie up loose ends, I'll deal with the assumptions.
(1)The leathers a rider is wearing are probably harder than the leather in coefficient of friction tables, so the coefficient of friction for the rider may be less
(2)I think it's reasonable to assume a similar size contact patch
(3)ditto
(4)if there were rotational motion it would cause the rider to go farther than in the ideal condition. However the weight would be concentrated towards the outside and he would have a fairly large moment of inertia, so I feel like he would dissipate kinetic energy at a reasonable rate.
(5)same as #1
Last edited by Lars; 12-01-2009 at 04:33 PM.
12-01-2009 | 04:33 PM
#28
vangorder
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,209
Likes: 0
From: Virginia Beach
Re: Motorcycle Crash Debate!!
Sorry for being the one to be a nerd.
But since I'm studying to become a physical chemist, I'll give a simple equation to prove a point. To keep it simple, the assumptions of this equation are:
(1)rider is wearing leathers
(2)same size contact patch between the ground and the bike, as between the ground and the rider
(3)the bike does not bounce, the rider is bouncing and in contact with the asphalt roughly half the time
(4)no rotational motion for the rider
(5)coefficient of friction between leather and asphalt being about three times that between plastic and asphalt (looked through some tables, came up with 0.2 for the bike plastics, 0.6 for the leather)
OK i had this all neatly written in an equation program but that didn't want to get onto here so I'll explain it. nice and simple though so its not bad
(Force of friction)=(mass)x(acceleration)
-(coefficient of friction)x(normal force)=(mass)x(acceleration)
-(coefficient of friction)x(9.8 <- this is gravity)x(mass)=(mass)x(acceleration)
(acceleration)=-(coefficient of friction)x(9.8)
the acceleration is directly correlated to the coefficient of friction, so it decelerates as a direct function of this.
By this logic the rider should decelerate 3x faster than the bike.
Due to assumption number 2, we'll cut that in half and say he decelerates (3/2)x faster than the bike.
Given the kinematic equations, distance traveled is directly related to acceleration, so the bike should slide (3/2)x farther than the rider. These are ideal conditions, and in reality there may be less of a difference.
Nevertheless, it is quite clear that the bike slides farther. Since things like curbs and ditches really fuck you up when you hit them, you wanna stop in as short a distance as possible in a crash. holding onto the bike will cause you to go further, and have a greater chance of hitting a stationary object and getting hurt.
To tie up loose ends, I'll deal with the assumptions.
(1)The leathers a rider is wearing are probably harder than the leather in coefficient of friction tables, so the coefficient of friction for the rider may be less
(2)I think it's reasonable to assume a similar size contact patch
(3)ditto
(4)if there were rotational motion it would cause the rider to go farther than in the ideal condition. However the weight would be concentrated towards the outside and he would have a fairly large moment of inertia, so I feel like he would dissipate kinetic energy at a reasonable rate.
(5)same as #1
But since I'm studying to become a physical chemist, I'll give a simple equation to prove a point. To keep it simple, the assumptions of this equation are:
(1)rider is wearing leathers
(2)same size contact patch between the ground and the bike, as between the ground and the rider
(3)the bike does not bounce, the rider is bouncing and in contact with the asphalt roughly half the time
(4)no rotational motion for the rider
(5)coefficient of friction between leather and asphalt being about three times that between plastic and asphalt (looked through some tables, came up with 0.2 for the bike plastics, 0.6 for the leather)
OK i had this all neatly written in an equation program but that didn't want to get onto here so I'll explain it. nice and simple though so its not bad
(Force of friction)=(mass)x(acceleration)
-(coefficient of friction)x(normal force)=(mass)x(acceleration)
-(coefficient of friction)x(9.8 <- this is gravity)x(mass)=(mass)x(acceleration)
(acceleration)=-(coefficient of friction)x(9.8)
the acceleration is directly correlated to the coefficient of friction, so it decelerates as a direct function of this.
By this logic the rider should decelerate 3x faster than the bike.
Due to assumption number 2, we'll cut that in half and say he decelerates (3/2)x faster than the bike.
Given the kinematic equations, distance traveled is directly related to acceleration, so the bike should slide (3/2)x farther than the rider. These are ideal conditions, and in reality there may be less of a difference.
Nevertheless, it is quite clear that the bike slides farther. Since things like curbs and ditches really fuck you up when you hit them, you wanna stop in as short a distance as possible in a crash. holding onto the bike will cause you to go further, and have a greater chance of hitting a stationary object and getting hurt.
To tie up loose ends, I'll deal with the assumptions.
(1)The leathers a rider is wearing are probably harder than the leather in coefficient of friction tables, so the coefficient of friction for the rider may be less
(2)I think it's reasonable to assume a similar size contact patch
(3)ditto
(4)if there were rotational motion it would cause the rider to go farther than in the ideal condition. However the weight would be concentrated towards the outside and he would have a fairly large moment of inertia, so I feel like he would dissipate kinetic energy at a reasonable rate.
(5)same as #1