My Crash, limited time viewing now

[vince]

This thing on spacing is kind of new to most. And what I mean by this is when I was a teenager we were told when we rode together with friends that you road side by side even in turns. I think I road like this until the MSF started. Then came staggered riding. Following distance was even new to cars back in the 60's. The new media would talk about it telling you to be one car length for every 10 mph. Now days you see almost every one riding staggered in a group with out even thinking about it. So I think talking about it as often as we do and in more time we will keep more of a safe distance back with out even thinking about also. As far as speed goes, for myself I use to ride WOT between anything. One reason I got so many tickets in the past. Now that I pace ride, stop laughing, I get less tickets and everything lasts longer on the bike as well. I do this now riding the snowmobile and brakes and belts last a lot longer. Sometime I turn into a squid again. It's hard to get rid of old bad habits sometimes. Reading Lloyd's post I almost got the calculator out, but very true.

[Chris]

I've ridden with Ray, Tony, Vince, etc for over 10 years now.  Ridden with Tony longer than that.  I've done over 80 on that road myself.  There are reasons why I stopped doing so.  Just because you wind up doing 80 with other riders only means you haven't had the pleasure of learning my lessons.  State highways and busy roads are not good places to do 80+.  Coming down the hill into the twisities outside Arcadia at 80+ leads me to believe you were doing faster speeds prior to this.  The fact that you are having to ride the brakes through the first hard corner leads me to believe you were caught off guard and probably lulled to some extent by the speed.  Go ahead and rationalize all you want.  But you might not get away with that corner braking next time and wind up lowsiding into Joe Public on a right hander. 

I agree, just because you can does not mean you should, I am guilty at doing this as think most member on here are.

Ray -- Thank you for your input, I agree the definition of "a safe distance" is the following bike needs to be able to stop in a line with the bike in front of them without hitting them or changing there line.

I have to agree with Objurgate (it may have been all the fancy numbers) I think for most of us with moral braking skills at 70pmh (which is mostly the pace for MSTA rides), a minimum of 4 sec needs to be observed, which I don't think I have ever seen and very rarely have I seen 2 sec. Take away for next year as a group we need to check each other and don't be offend if if somebody tells you to back off, it for everybody safety. 

[Jared]

For the riders involved in this group, what was the motivation to ride so close?  Pretty clear the increased following distance increases safety, so there must be something else swaying that equation in the other direction?  I get it when racing and even at track days when you're moving around a slower rider to get some open track, but street riding I've never felt the need to do this since I've always been able to find a way to ride the the speed I want to just by backing off a bit in the straights to increase distance to the rider in front of me.  Then it doesn't matter if they park it in the corners, I can use the space I opened up to ride the pace I want to through the fun stuff, then open the space back up again in the straights.

[flyinlow]

For the riders involved in this group, what was the motivation to ride so close? 

I asked this question to a group of riders one time, why do you have to ride so close together? The answer was "its fun". I then countered with what's so fun about being so close together that if the guy in front makes a mistake or has to hit the brakes suddenly that you are going to hit him, be injured or quite possibly killed. That doesn't sound like fun to me. I got the usual deer in the headlights response that I didn't know what I was talking about. I no longer ride with them.

[aschendel]

For the riders involved in this group, what was the motivation to ride so close? 

... I no longer ride with them.

I've been on mn-msta rides with some of the best and it's a rare moment when there are "adequate" following distances throughout the group.

I can think of lots of reasons to ride closer than we should, but "habit" is probably the strongest, and the fact that we don't accurately measure the actual distance (covered a bit in the Riding Safe thread).

by the way, the math in *this discussion* is what they were trying to teach us in calculus -- and you thought you'd never use it  

a.s.

[Chris]

by the way, the math in *this discussion* is what they were trying to teach us in calculus -- and you thought you'd never use it  

a.s.

If they would have taught it in practical matters like this we all would have done better

[Joel S]

learned this video was shot with a gopro. people with them have an idea of distances and how deceiving these are. you can be a length or two back and look like its 10 lengths. found that interesting.

[Ray916MN]

Even the most skilled and prepared riders take over .6 seconds to get the brakes applied and over 1.1 seconds to have them at their fulll potential (some magazine testers stats from the 90's)--these guys knew what was coming and ride allot, on alot of different bikes and likely have better skills than your "average" motorcyclist
 So if the bike/car truck whatever in front of you is already at their maximum braking potential when you realize it and it takes you another 1.1 seconds to get to yours (mind you, you will still be closing on them if both braking vehicles and riders abilities are somewhat equal......forever-til you both stop or the lead bike gets off the brakes---they scrubbed lots of speed before the following bike even got to maximum decelleration due to braking)
 If you consider the average sportbike stops from 60 in under 120 feet (60 mph is at 88 feet per second?)
So the following bike closed up 88+ feet on the lead bike and would still be traveling at a speed of atleast 30 mph faster than the lead bike-simply based on that 1.1 second delay in the follower getting to maximum braking potential ( this is a rough estimate for simplicity, simply based off 88 feet second at 60 mph--it actually would be slightly less based on decreasing speed)
Then you are both equally at 100% of the braking abilities, yet the lead bike is traveling about 30 mph slower than the following bike---so another 44+ feet would be ate up by the time the lead bike stopped--( again rough estimate based on the 30 mph and 44 feet per second....the actual distance would be slightly less based on the decreasing speed)
Now you have the lead bike already stopped and the following bike still traveling at something less than 30 mph.......so another 30 feet before the following bike stopped.......

88' + 44' + 30'= 162'

 So that is atleast 160 feet @ 60 mph--provided the following bike and rider are on top of their game and use the full potential of the bikes brakes and are alert and aware to spot the lead bike slowing almost immediately------------When does that ever happen, never !

****--it isn't just the 1+ second delay in the follower getting on the brakes to maximum potential.......if you look at it that way only---okay 1 second delay= 88'......followers stopping distance at 60 mph= 120', leaders stopping distance at then 30mph = 30' (his speed after 1 second of braking)...........88'+ (120'-30') =88' + 90' = 178', both bikes and riders being equal****

So use the numbers any way you want, 162' or 178'----in either scenario a 2 second gap at 60 mph is only 176'--it is a near miss or you hit...

You're analysis is flawed.

Unless the testing procedure for stopping distances is based on the brakes being preloaded the distance time needed to go from no brakes to full brakes is included in the stopping distance of 120'.

While it is true that the delay in reacting to the bike in front you means that the bike in front of you will be traveling at a lower speed, when the following rider gets on the brakes, you have not included in your analysis the distance it took the lead bike to go from 60 mph to 30 mph. As stopping distances increase disproportionately with speed, this distance is guaranteed to be 60' or greater.

The analysis is really much simpler than you make it.

60mph=88ft/sec.

2 sec. =178 ft difference.

Given a 120 ft stopping distance from 60 mph, the lead bike will stop no sooner than 298' from where the following bike is when the lead bike first starts braking. The following bike has 2 seconds to begin executing a magazine style braking test from 60 mph.

Lastly a reaction time of 1.1 seconds for an anticipated panic stop is hard to believe. At 60 mph, this implies the bike travels 96.8 ft before braking occurs and which would mean after the full braking occurs a bike can stop in less than 30' from 60 mph. The majority of reaction time is clearly already included in the stopping distance. It may not translate to full braking, but as soon as the brake lever is pulled and the brake light signals braking, the bike begins braking and slowing. You can not treat the time to full braking as if no braking is occurring and it is hard to imagine how the large majority of this time and distance is not already incorporated into the total stopping distance.

[aschendel]

i get that we are disagreeing (generally, as a group), but i'm not really clear as to what the point of contention is?  is it just the math?  or is ray saying that a following distance much shorter than lloyd talks about would be sufficient or the other way around?

riddle me this: what's the point of staggered riding ** out on the open road ** if appropriate following distances are maintained?

a.s.

[Ray916MN]

i get that we are disagreeing (generally, as a group), but i'm not really clear as to what the point of contention is?  is it just the math?  or is ray saying that a following distance much shorter than lloyd talks about would be sufficient or the other way around?

riddle me this: what's the point of staggered riding ** out on the open road ** if appropriate following distances are maintained?

a.s.

Lloyd and I are disagreeing on whether 2 seconds at 60 mph is a safe following distance. We agree on everything, except for the math/logic of determining whether it is a safe distance or not. Lloyd's analysis leads him to believe it is too close, my analysis leads me to believe it is okay.

Staggered riding is actually a formation which supposedly allows closer safe following distances. Generally people say in a staggered formation on straights that a 2 sec spacing to the bike in front of you and 1 sec spacing to the bike in the other tire track is okay. Personally I kind of like 2 seconds to the nearest bike irrespective of formation, but that is another discussion.

[gely]

Hmm, you guys keep saying Lloyd post, but I don't see his posting here.  Wondering if there's something wrong with my browser?  I normally don't shut my computer down, but did a browser refresh/reboot and still not seeing his post.

[aschendel]

fair enough, although it seems like we're all in the same ball park.  i'll contend that staggered formation is foolish-looking and irrelevant at 176-200' spacings.  I think it's easy to underestimate how far that is.

a.s.

[aschendel]

Objurgate == Lloyd for the time-being.

[vince]

For the riders involved in this group, what was the motivation to ride so close?

Well you had to be there. A large group, all young, all male, great piece of road and we where going to ride it twice, and every one is on a sport bike. Get the picture. This all equals what.

[Deplorable, thank you!]

For the riders involved in this group, what was the motivation to ride so close?

Well you had to be there. A large group, all young, all male, great piece of road and we where going to ride it twice, and every one is on a sport bike. Get the picture. This all equals what.

Someone crashing (getting an ambulance ride)---just like all those types of rides.

"or is ray saying that a following distance much shorter than lloyd talks about would be sufficient or the other way around?

riddle me this: what's the point of staggered riding ** out on the open road ** if appropriate following distances are maintained?"



I am saying longer following distances are needed than Ray is..........but what difference does it make when people are routinely following at less than 50', usually less than 25'...........

I will re offer for anyone to follow me @ 50' and I'll slam on the brakes unexpectadly-who here wants to risk their health and bike to prove me wrong.... ( I practice quick stops plenty, so I already know the outcome, thus I will be driving a truck and you can be the ambulance getter or ditch dweller)