Well I fucked up now 180000 people know im a dick.

We all screw up. We all take our eye off the ball. We all end up at the end of a street and wonder how the hell we got there cos we don't remember a thing about it. And most of the time, we all get away with it.

I am a great advocate of training and real experience though, and I am concerned that people can get a licence after a couple of days and get out on a 600cc bike or more when they have practically zero experience (not saying this is the case here).

The British Motorcycle Federation is lobbying hard to reduce the stringency of tests for motorbikes in their bid to get more people on two wheels. Fine on the latter aspect, but I'm on the opposite side of the fence - more experience is needed, and something like 2000 miles proof of riding on a 125cc after passing your test before being able to move to a max 500cc, then another 5000 miles on that before being allowed to move up. No idea how they would test that the person had that experience, but there are too many deaths and injuries and crashes involving bikes where the biker just can't handle the bigger bike safely.

Should be the same for cars - no car above 1000cc for new drivers for first 5000 miles

Now does that put the cat amongst the pigeons?
 
YTStrider said:
Well, I'll say first off, if you're going to ride quickly, you need to be more observant. I won't say it's smart, in fact I'll definitely say it's dumb, but I very commonly do a lot of speeding. Maybe 80 or so in 50s, (if not worse, but I won't admit to anything) as long as there aren't too many cars to deal with. But I always prepare for the idiots to do the worst thing they can and be in my way and I'm ready on how to avoid them.
Riding almost any type of bike will allow you to stop MILES faster, harder and quicker than a car unless it's a Zonda or Veyron. My asshole, oops I mean opinion, about this is that you had a lapse in focus while speeding and didn't use enough of your front brakes. Our rear brakes are (nearly) useless. You could have cranked on those front brakes a hell of a lot more. And, of course, don't jerk the lever, and don't lock them up, but they can handle SO much braking.

When in doubt, lean more. When in fear, brake harder.

Only exception is if you're locked up already. The kinetic friction coefficient is about half of the static friction coefficient. In other words, a well-placed tire braking hard has DOUBLE the braking capability than a tire locked up and sliding. -source- physics. Google it.

Nail well and truly smacked on the head.

Dont beat yourself about it, you werent killed, nobody was injured. Mistakes DO happen, you should have been more aware. You werent... anyone who doesnt loose focus sometimes (even if its once in a blue moon) is a better man than me. I expect most if not all of us have fucked up through misjudgement or lack of awareness/concentration.


Paralytic converters RIP and upload of your crash hasnt hit the views perhaps expected. I hope YOU can make some money of it via the web :) No mention of the fact its on your channel 08ride, with no credit to RYANTCB I notice.
 
TT - didn't know it was a motovlogger, nor whose it was, until I saw this thread tonight. Was thinking of deleting it altogether - in fact, will do that now.
 
YTStrider said:
Riding almost any type of bike will allow you to stop MILES faster, harder and quicker than a car unless it's a Zonda or Veyron

There is a dangerous misconception here that I felt too important to disregard because it is repeated often. I have tested stopping distance myself between my car and a riding instructor on his CBR600. from 100kph there was no difference in stopping distance. Note... perfect conditions. Motorcyclists often dont use all of their braking capability, so they often have a longer braking distance than a car driver who has no fear of crashing. Here is a good article on braking, but I can provide a million sources that can tell you there is no difference between car and bike stopping distances: http://www.stevemunden.com/braking.html
 
For those that dont want to click the link, the relevant section is below... I know its long, but its worth it:

Can you brake faster than cars?
Good question. During our emergency braking exercises I always ask this question, and I get two answers, both wrong. One is "Certainly not; motorcycle tires have two small contact patches, car tires have four larger contact patches, so motorcycles have less traction." You can read my page on traction and contact patch area to see why contact patch area is irrelevant, so this answer is wrong. The other answer is "Certainly; you can accelerate faster than cars because you're lighter. You can decelerate faster than cars, because you're lighter." I subscribed to the second view until one of my students, Eli Baldwin, said that the physics in the two situations is entirely different. He's right. Motorcycles can accelerate faster than (most) cars because the ratio of power to weight is greater for motorcycles; there may be less horsepower but it's pushing a lot less weight. But for braking, the horsepower of the engine is irrelevant. To find out whether motorcycles brake better than cars we have to look deeper into the physics of braking.

The force on a vehicle during a stop is just the vehicle's mass times the (negative) acceleration, F = ma. That force has to be applied at the tires via their traction. The friction equation is F = μW (where W is the weight of the vehicle and μ is the Greek letter mu, the coefficient of friction — again see laws of friction for details). The weight of the vehicle is the mass m times the gravitational force g, so F = μmg. The maximum stopping force that can be applied is the maximum frictional force that the tires can sustain, so ma = μmg; and we can cancel the mass which appears on both sides to get the maximum deceleration possible:
a = μg

Now before we go further, let's note some assumptions. One is that the downwards force in the friction equation is actually the weight of the vehicle. Race cars use airfoils to develop a downward force to improve their traction, so their stopping distances would be better than an unassisted vehicle (at speeds allowing the airfoil to work). If street cars ever begin to use this technology then the conclusions would have to change to take that into account.

Another assumption is that the limiting factor in stopping is traction, rather than the ability of the brakes to dissipate the energy. This is true of cars and motorcycles at normal speeds, as their brakes can overwhelm the traction of the tires, causing a slide. But it isn't true of large trucks. Their additional mass provides additional traction, as shown in F = μmg, but the additional energy is more than the brakes can deal with, resulting in longer stopping distances. And a reader, Garrett Underwood, pointed out to me that as speeds increase, even cars and motorcycles may become limited by the ability of the brakes to deal with the energy (which increases as the square of the speed). If this point is reached then motorcycles may have an advantage in stopping distance, as motorcycles generally weigh a quarter or less of a car's weight, so the kinetic energy which must be converted to heat is also a quarter or less. I don't know where the tipping point is between tire traction and braking energy as the limiting factor, but as Garrett mentioned, the difference in stopping distances between smaller passenger cars and larger SUVs and pickup trucks widens dramatically from 60mph to 80mph, suggesting that energy becomes a factor even at those speeds.

Brake design plays a role. Drum brakes don't deal with energy as well as modern disk brakes. Two large brake disks on a sportbike will move more energy than a single small disk on a cruiser. More pad area pushed by more pistons will reduce lever effort on the part of the rider, making it easier to achieve the maximum braking force. The same factors in auto brakes will affect which auto can outbrake which motorcycle.

The limiting factor in a stop of a motorcycle may also not be the traction, but the stability of the vehicle. We've all seen sportbikes with the rear tire in the air in a stop. The front tire isn't sliding, so there may be still more traction available to slow, but any additional braking will just result in the motorcycle going over the front tire.

But with the assumption that stopping distance is limited by the traction of the tires, a = μg shows that the mass of the vehicle is not relevant; it does not enter into the equation. The only difference might be in the value of μ for car and bike tires. I had speculated that motorcycle tires have stickier rubber than auto tires, because of the difference in tire life. Softer rubber being stickier than harder rubber, and having a shorter life, it might follow that motorcycle tires are stickier than auto tires. But a reader, Blane Baysinger, pointed me to a Society of Automotive Engineers article comparing motorcycle and auto tires. This article indicates that the coefficient of friction of both auto and motorcycle tires is about 1.2 on dry surfaces (declining to .7 to .9 when skidding). The difference in longevity appears to be due to the greater amount of rubber on the auto tires; and it appears that if you can stop faster than a car, it's because you're better at using the brakes, not because of any inherent superiority in the braking capability of a motorcycle.

And there is one final complication: Can you use all the traction of your motorcycle tires? If you get too hard on the brakes in your car, you slide, you let off the pedal to resume rolling, you get back on the brakes. When the same thing happens on your motorcycle, the slide generally results in a fall. Thus motorcyclists are reluctant to approach the limit of their braking, where the same isn't true of auto drivers.

So where does this leave us? Here's my rule: I figure the guy in front of me is able to outbrake me, so I leave enough room between us, and look well ahead of him, so that I won't hit him. And I figure I can outbrake the guy behind me, especially if he's too close or not paying attention, so I leave even more room in front (to reduce the probability that I'll have to brake hard), and keep a close eye on my mirrors, and stay in the proper gear so that after braking hard I can escape if needed.
 
O8ride said:
TT - didn't know it was a motovlogger, nor whose it was, until I saw this thread tonight. Was thinking of deleting it altogether - in fact, will do that now.
Seriously? taking, then re-posting someone elses video without their consent is pathetic. Hope you didnt also monetize it, if so, you are not only pathetic, but also a greedy scumbag.

As far as the OP, I'm glad you are okay, that definately could have been a lot worse.
 
237,000 people now!

Bloody hell! You were so lucky to come out of that one in one piece mate! :shock: :o

I probably would have done the same in your situation. Just panicked, headed for the gap and yelled swear words loudly and lots of them.

I am with Nerb, you need to monetise the crap out of this video, it could make you a fortune!
 
pants.jpg


Sorry it had to be done...

On a serious note though...

Nerb... how does ABS feature in breaking on a bike in those equations?
 
O8ride said:
TT - didn't know it was a motovlogger, nor whose it was, until I saw this thread tonight. Was thinking of deleting it altogether - in fact, will do that now.

What was your intention of uploading someone elses content to your channel?
 
thunderous71 said:
Nerb... how does ABS feature in breaking on a bike in those equations?

When you grab a hand full of front brake (lets say in an emergency), one of three things happens... the front wheel could lock (so you either crash or let off the brake), you will brake at the limit of the tire (this is what the equations are based on) or you will brake too lightly increasing your stopping distance. ABS eliminates the wheel locking scenario. This is good in more ways than 1, because not only will you not lock the wheel, your fear of locking the wheel should be diminished and you are more likely to brake closer to scenario 2... at the limit of the rubber.

You should note that this is the only thing ABS does, releases the brake pressure for a split second to prevent the wheel locking. It is not to be feared, unless you enjoy locking the front wheel! The only argument against ABS on a bike is valid under test conditions... ie "i can out brake ABS". It doesnt happen in real life.

Our OP would have liked ABS... his rear wouldnt have stepped out and he would more likely have used more front brake.

I am tee-ing up a vlog to prove this so (hopefully) people can link the non-believers to it. It will test my 1996 mazda without ABS, my wifes mazda with ABS, my motard without ABS, my new bike with ABS and my riding instructor mate with super human skills who practices emergency stops for a living. Just seeking permission to use the bike range, if not, illegal back road testing it will be!
 
Also, the whole "I can out brake ABS" has been tested on professional riders.
They failed.

There is a reason why ABS is NOT allowed on any race series. removes the skill from the equation, lessens mistakes.

I have a video that demonstrates why abs is good (how to brake on a motorcycle, youtube it) - I simply JAM on the brakes at any speed, with zero worries, carefree, and it eventually stops. However, braking correctly is still better, but with abs you can brake a lot harder, then feel the abs kick in, release a tiny bit of pressure, and keep on threshold braking.
In this case abs would have stopped the out of control moment, and given enough confidence to actually brake correctly from the get-go.
I speak from experience, as I was distracted by a lovely lady on a bandit 600n coming the other way, and almost hit the rear of a car that was stopped on my lane. From 70kph-ish (43mph) to 0 in about a couple of car lenghts.
(note I dont remember the car make, but I remember the bike make. And the lady's short short jean shorts, and white tank top. And nice cleavage).

Ladies are a menace on the road, I tells ya!
 

Winners Video

Website Supported by Ipswich SEO

Latest posts

Back
Top