VeeshanVault

Movie of some nut riding fast on a crotch rocket.

http://shite.sundayarvo.com/images/vids/300kph/300.wmv

How fucking stupid.

Was anyone else hoping for some serious carnage?

that dash looks like a yamaha YZF-R6.. but its probably the R1

Stupid, maybe? But still, infinitely more fucking cool than anything we are likely to post here!

What makes it so 'fucking cool'?

That would be 1000x better if the "crazy frog" sound was the audio for that

So he was at what about 150-180 mph? I wonder what kind of ticket that is.

Was anyone else hoping for some serious carnage?

More like praying...

For why this is cool, please watch any bike race on the planet.

/pharm

Yeah that makes sense. A dumbshit speeding on a public roadway. I can see how that relates to any other bike race on the planet. It's so fucking cool!!

Oh dry your eyes.

Very good you don't think its cool, I do, it's merely a matter of opinion anyway, let's bitterly argue for no reason!

How mature.

Argument? I don't see an argument. You said it was cool and I was just wondering what made it so. Hardly what I would consider "bitterly arguing."

Arguments are down the hall.

If it was an American soldier in Iraq, it wouldn't be cool.

Too cool for school

noel wrote:If it was an American soldier in Iraq, it wouldn't be cool.

It would be reckless and dangerous to the Iraqi people. Heck the soldier has no business being there the jerk.

Wet eye syndrome strikes again.

It's cool to endanger not only your life, but everyone around you as well?

The only thing tha would of made that video better was to watch him go head first into a semi.

This person has a big, big future as a reddish-brown stain on the asphalt.

Aslanna wrote:Arguments are down the hall.

Oh haha!

Aslanna wrote: Arguments are down the hall.

No they aren't!

Nick wrote:Wet eye syndrome strikes again.

Or a supremely easy shot of irony... YOU DECIDE.

Fairweather Pure wrote:

Was anyone else hoping for some serious carnage?

More like praying...

i was hoping a car would sneak up around 1 of those turns when he pulled in the other lanes...

i was waitin for him to hit something... since he never did... that movie sucks

Definately NOT cool. Too dangerous for the road. No matter how skilled a rider you are, there are always other people who are apt to pull out in front of you, pass another car when they shouldn't, etc. Putting the general public in danger by showing your ass like that should result in bike seizure and license revokation.

Nick

Here's some crashes if you're into that sort of thing. Some motorcycle ones in there for you! Most of the rest are race cars.

http://www.yourdailymedia.com/media/1122837428

And no idea what this guy was looking at. Hard to miss a big bus!

http://www.ugoto.com/videos/go/bikermeetsbackofbus

stop tring to act like a girl,lizard.

Aww Noel, how cute!

Nick wrote:Aww Noel, how cute!

Really I was just looking for an opportunity to showcase my new icon.

And a fine one it is too sir!

Here's some crashes if you're into that sort of thing. Some motorcycle ones in there for you! Most of the rest are race cars.

Watching professionals crash isn't nearly as satisfying as watching joe average pull some stupid fucking stunt on his crotch rocket and die in the process.

There didn't seem to be too many places someone could pull out in front of him. Obviously that some somewhere in Europe, you can tell by the cars and buses. Maybe the roads are cleaner over there but my worry would be a rock... you hit even a little rock going that fast and your done for... what a dipshit.

Marb

Well, it was obviously in Europe... the speedo in KPH was my first clue.
On mountain roads like that, it's not unheard of for people to blast along them in excess of 200 KPH (120 mph) in cars and bikes.

Judging from how the guy was shifting, braking and taking the corners, I'd guess he was a pretty accomplished rider. The biggest problem at that speed would be wobbles but he was only hitting 200+ for short bursts. Bikes like that are generally rock solid at 200. Also keep in mind that super sports like those can accelerate to 100 in less than 3 seconds and brake from 200 in a much shorter distance than a car can brake from 100.

you hit even a little rock going that fast and your done for... what a dipshit.

Define *little*....
A fist sized rock would cause problems but common tarmac debris wouldn't.

miir wrote:Also keep in mind that super sports like those can accelerate to 100 in less than 3 seconds and brake from 200 in a much shorter distance than a car can brake from 100.

That's a falacy. Given momentum is the square of your speed, if you're going 200 you have 4 times the momentum of someone doing 100, which means given an expert rider can stop a bike in 150 feet at 60mph, it will take 600 feet at 120mph, without even adding in the extra distance you travel in the reaction time. I'm fairly certain I've never driven a car that couldn't stop from 100kph in 200 metres. The average stopping distance is about 200 feet including reaction time, certainly a lot further than an expert rider in perfect conditions, but...

Ok I'm gonna try and test this out in the next few days but I'm pretty sure you don't need 200m to brake to 0mph from 120.

Zaelath wrote:That's a falacy. Given momentum is the square of your speed, if you're going 200 you have 4 times the momentum of someone doing 100, which means given an expert rider can stop a bike in 150 feet at 60mph, it will take 600 feet at 120mph, without even adding in the extra distance you travel in the reaction time. I'm fairly certain I've never driven a car that couldn't stop from 100kph in 200 metres. The average stopping distance is about 200 feet including reaction time, certainly a lot further than an expert rider in perfect conditions, but...

Physics called. It said to tell you you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Momentum = Mass * Velocity

Miir is right. It takes far less distance for a motorcycle to deccelerate than it does for an automobile.

My bad, I meant the inertia: http://www.arachnoid.com/lutusp/auto.html

The rest of my post still stands, it's the energy you have to dissipate via friction.

Zaelath wrote:My bad, I meant the inertia: http://www.arachnoid.com/lutusp/auto.html

The rest of my post still stands, it's the energy you have to dissipate via friction.

Except you're still trying to take a rather complex physics problem, and only look at it from one aspect.

The braking for a motorcycle, is as good or better than an automobile, and it has far less mass. You now know the formula for momentum... if you understand it, that should be your first clue that you're wrong...

noel wrote:

Zaelath wrote:My bad, I meant the inertia: http://www.arachnoid.com/lutusp/auto.html

The rest of my post still stands, it's the energy you have to dissipate via friction.

Except you're still trying to take a rather complex physics problem, and only look at it from one aspect.

The braking for a motorcycle, is as good or better than an automobile, and it has far less mass. You now know the formula for momentum... if you understand it, that should be your first clue that you're wrong...

Look, just read the article. Stopping distance is proportional to the square of the speed. It's a simple fact.

Momentum is a force. Inertia is energy, and it's energy the opposing force (friction) has to act against to bring you to a stop.

When you start comparing a car v's a bike you have to then look at the actual stopping distances of those vehicles; those generally are listed for 60MPH not 120MPH so you have to use inertia to extrapolate. Done correctly you seperate the reaction time distance from the braking distance and you can clearly see that the reaction distance is a linear function where as the braking distance is exponential.

Pure momentum is only useful for telling you which direction you will fly when you have a collision, and how fast.

Where you're probably getting lost is that a car exerts a lot more braking force than a motorcycle (because it has a lot more contact with the road), but it also has a lot more inertia (because of it's mass).

Anyway, it's my fault for confusing the issue by incorrectly referring to momentum when I meant inertia, but if you persist in denying reality then I suggest you do your own test: Work out the stopping distance of your car at 30MPH, then mark off 3x that distance from a wall and start braking at that point from 60MPH. If you stop well short of the wall I will give you a dollar per inch.

Obviously his braking wasn't up to snuff...

Car pwnt

I would have to say the person on that bike never touched the brakes.

I would concur that the person above couldnt have tried to brake. One thing I will say is that I know from personal experience that I can stop in a much shorter distance on a bike then I could in my car, and thats with High performance brakes and rotors too (on the car)

i thought this thread was going to be like winnow's diary.

You're a square if you don't do stupid things on a crotchrocket!