lol wut

I'm surprised nobody is comenting on the pass on the right in the second video. Once in the twistys passing on the right is a faux pas in my book. I usually say to pass only on the left when I organize a group ride. Maybe this particular rider couldn't get slowed in time to stay behind Mike, which suggests he may have been following to close.

Passing on the right is a no no in any scenario.......But I think it was let slide because none of the "regulars" on here need that reminder.
 Picking apart these videos and pointing out the countless things done wrong seems futile to say the least--the main topics;
 following distance
 speed for skill level level (only touched on)
 and skill level at all
seem to have been covered well (perhaps beat to death?? if that really can happen)

Quote from: Objurgate on November 06, 2011, 11:29:53 PM

...

You still have to consider that if you were both traveling at the same rate of speed, and that lead bike got a second on the brakes jump on you (likely it would be more) that lead bikes rate of speed even after the following bike is on them (brakes) for all they are worth is still lower than the following bike........Thus the trailing bike is still closing the gap on the lead bike all the way til it stops--which could easily be in excess of 165' at just 60 mph ( given a 1 second head start on the brakes for the lead bike)

....

I don't think the closing rate is a material consideration until you get to higher speeds.

At 60 mph a 2 second gap is 176 ft. Assuming both bikes stop in the same distance, if the second bike starts braking 1 second later than the first bike it stops 88 ft behind the first bike.

There is still a potential for ass packing based on differences in the rate of stopping at different speeds. If one bike achieves 90% of its stopping in the first second of braking while the other achieves 10%, even though their total stopping distances are the same, a collision during stopping becomes much more likely.  At 60 mph though, the test panel data for most bikes show stopping distances in the 100-125ft.range ('98 VFR 108ft, 2003 ST1300ABS 124ft). 88ft is a significant gap relative to these stopping distances. 88 feet is 88% of the shortest stopping distance. As stopping distances increases disproportionately with speed, I'd think more like 180-200 ft stopping distance @80 mph and a 1 second gap yields 117 ft  the likelihood of collisions due to differences in stopping rates increases. 117 feet is 65% of the shortest stopping distance. So as speed increases and stopping distances increase disproportionately the percent extra stopping distance you get for a given time gap gets smaller. Which is why it makes sense to increase following distances as speed increases. You need to maintain your stopping cushion as a percentage of total stopping distance to guard against collisions due to differences in rates of deceleration at different speeds.

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...

 Since a 2 second following distance doesn't happen by the vast majority of riders (what I see regularly is that most (80%+) think 50' is more than adequate--I actually had one argue that point on a ride a few weeks ago).....You clearly know what this outcome would be.

This scenario only gets worse (in a hurry) as speeds increase, and considering a typical ride is 70+, well you get the idea.......minimum "safe" distance should be 200'+ @ 60........300'+ for the riding we really do and that is nearly never given, some putz further back sees that and they think you are too slow and somehow passing you and riding on someones ass at 50' is going to have them going "faster" or having more "fun"........sure if you can't ride your own ride, or need that lead bike close enough to you to cue off of them for your entry speed, corner speed, exit speed exit.........basically for the under skilled, under knowledged riders. Those are the riders who would actually have even worse reaction times and longer braking distances to boot-so they are in even more jeopardy than two highly skilled riders riding far too close together.

So I don't care if you are a professional road racer, taken 3 dozen world championships and have 10 bazillion miles under your belt---at 50' you will pass the lead bike (or hit it), at anything under say 150' following distance it is a given you will pass the lead bike (and that is at 60 mph, when do we ride 60?) --I could complicate this with further scenarios (lead bike rarely brakes all the way to a stop etc...), but why??? 200' should be a bare minimum, 300' should be the practiced following distance on these rides-since speeds are higher than 60.


Does anyone want to follow me at 50' while traveling at 60 mph and I'll slam on the brakes (as if a child ran out in front of me) and see if you can stop short of me? (I'll drive my 4.5 ton truck for my safety, you pay for my bumper and tailgate damage, deal?.... and you know that truck will take about 200' to stop, so you should have plenty of room , right? Are you willing to risk bodily injury to find out?)





Ge, "When I direct it at someone in particular, believe me you will know it !"
      " This isn't aimed at any one person in particular-----so read into it whatever you desire."
 Could I have spelled it out any clearer?


PKPK---yep I agree...Just because you "can" run at 80+ through a turn (or in this case to a turn) doesn't mean you should.....

 As long as I am on a roll here,

 I by no means am saying everyone needs to ride the same way.
Obviously some people are always going to ride like "tools"--no doubt some think I ride like a "tool" (and at times I do), so it is all about perception.
 For anyone who is happy at the plateau they have reached in their skills level, well that is their problem (just know your skills diminish with time without practice--so your plateau is erroding away...)
 For anyone who wants to ride on the road like it is your own personal racetrack, well again that is all on you.
 
Speaking for myself (like always) I certainly don't want to ride with these types of riders, and it is my perception of the mn-msta and the MSTA that those aren't the people who they are seeking out either. But WTF do I know.

 Finally if you are all butt hurt about some criticism for something you openly share on a forum--you better get off the forums. There is always going to be someone you don't like, someone who doesn't like you, people who think differently.  Perhaps it isn't even that they don't like you, perhaps they are just using an opportunity to make a point?
 If you are set on sticking around, you have 2 choices--grow some thick skin and take it (hopefully learn and grow so your butt sore will go away) or continue whining like a little baby and continue to blame everyone else with your woe is me song....
 This isn't aimed at any one person in particular-----so read into it whatever you desire.

When I direct it at someone in particular, believe me you will know it !

 I hope he loses his job--and if he was on his way to an "off duty job" why is he using a taxpayer funded vehicle ?

Frickin crybaby that thinks he is "entitled" a frickin misdemeanor ticket isn't enough.

"Ever ridden with the rider directly in front of you? Not THAT rider..... My biggest mistake..."


While I see this as a mistake, it certainly was not the biggest one YOU made that day !

"idiotic riding behavior from riders without enough skills or good judgement to care about their safety or mine..........."

"boneheads"


Which is less offensive? 

The couple texts I have gotten, think I should just continue to say what I really want to say and damn the consequences.........I think I will go with that.

I guess it worked for Tim- no admonishment, no reprimand, no anything...even after pushing it to the forefront.


**************
Since Admin went in and deleted my post of my quotes of Tim's statements and Tim and/or Admin deleted those posts themselves----I will requote them for the future readers, otherwise nobody has a clue how lopsided the punishment vs no punishment actually is.
These are 2 of the posts that Tim put up, berating and name calling YUL that got no punishment, admonishment and no mention by the admin.
 Yet me stating that I will speak my mind (just like everyone else does) got me 7 days of not being able to post and called to the "principals" office.....

"Thought about it, and the evidence does indeed support that you are a moron... "in the purist""

"This simpleton needs to go back to the rock from which he crawled out of - I know exactly who you are, and yes, you are still a moron."

There was another post or two as well along these same lines, which I did not copy and paste into a word document.....but clearly between these 3 or 4 posts. Well they were in direct conflict with what supposedly is supposed to be the forum conduct rules and they got nothing except eventually deleted. 

 You have enough riding experience to make your own judgement but if you have 2/32" of tread over the wear bars that "should" last you about 1/4 of whatever miles you are getting out a tire

ie, if you get 4000 miles out of a tire, you should have about 1000 miles left

But I think you alreaady knew this and are just trying to change the topic and the top thread in the category??   BUt hey, who knows perhaps I am wrong- it does occassionally happen