Death toll rises in North Yorkshire 'bikers' paradise'
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-23714505
Authorities with the most fatal motorcycle crashes from 2010 to 2012
North Yorkshire 33
Lancashire 27
Lincolnshire 26
Hampshire 26
Staffordshire 21
Source: Department of Transport
|
|
I suppose it's the good weather this year vs. last two.
Last edited by: sooty tailpipes on Fri 16 Aug 13 at 17:56
|
I live in Stokesley, and in summer you can hear them preparing for the "Helsmley TT" as it is nicknamed as they drive along the bypass.
I have even seen bikers driving through one of the villages near the start of the B1257 weaving to warm their tyres
|
|
Glad to see Derbyshire is no longer in the list since closing the Snake Pass at weekends. We lost one of our family friends in a motor bike crash :(.
|
|
Middle aged men who pass the test late in life and don't realise the handling and braking on a bike is crap compared to a car.
|
|
Think this is a myth. Most bike fatalities are in the 16-25 age group, as for cars (roughly), and most are in 30 limits.
|
>> Middle aged men who pass the test late in life and don't realise the handling
>> and braking on a bike is crap compared to a car.
>>
It's been a while RR, most bikes have two discs on the front and one on the back. You can stand a bike on its nose and collect the unobservant following car driver without too much effort.
Of course there are bikers who can't see a traffic jam and slowing traffic as witnessed last week but we are not all on a mission to whatever comes next.
|
>> It's been a while RR, most bikes have two discs on the front and one
>> on the back. You can stand a bike on its nose and collect the unobservant
>> following car driver without too much effort.
You can have as many front discs as you want but your stopping power is limited by the contact patch on the front tyre and due to the profile of a motorcycle tyre that's very little. The rear brake is no use other than to gently drag a bit of speed off mid corner or in the wet, in a serious stop it does nothing as the weight transfer makes the back end go light and any heavy application will just lock the wheel. Many racers never touch the rear brake.
As good as bike brakes have become you'll never out stop a car.
Last edited by: Robin Regal on Fri 16 Aug 13 at 21:46
|
120/60 on a 17 inch rim scrubbing off speed for an eighth of the weight of a car does not match four wheels ? Is your name Parker ?
Lady P is awaiting you...
Last edited by: gmac on Fri 16 Aug 13 at 22:07
|
The brakes are irrelevant if they are capable of locking the wheels, which they are, or should be, in both cases.
The weight is irrelevant, as both the friction available and the frictional force required are proportionate to the weight, so it cancels out.
Possibly bike tyres are softer and grippier, which would confer a theoretical advantage.
The weight distribution of the bike however is such that it may not be able to take advantage of the extra grip - if the limiting factor is the rear tyre losing adhesion.
My instinct overall is that the bike is more likely to become unstable in some way, and the consequences of a skid are clearly worse for the bike, so I'd take the car.
Somebody must have tested this?
|
|
Manatee, there is this new thing called ABS means bike wheels should never, ever lockup even under the most brutal load. Excludes Harley's as farmyard transport doesn't need it ;-)
|
>> Manatee, there is this new thing called ABS means bike wheels should never, ever lockup
>> even under the most brutal load. Excludes Harley's as farmyard transport doesn't need it ;-)
Indeed. But the point is that both will "lock" and activate the ABS if available, so neither has an advantage from its brakes - big brakes can dissipate heat more quickly and retain more stopping power used repeatedly, but that probably makes little difference in a single stop.
The bike may have a rubber advantage, or not. But take into account the higher centre of gravity and potential of the bike to lift its back wheel, the fact that the rider has to hang on, the need for skill braking the bike (all a car driver has to do is stamp on the brake and let the ABS do its thing) and unless the bikist is a racer I don't think he would get anywhere near beating the car in stopping distance.
|
Does a driver in a metal cage have the same sightlines as the higher up biker?
Accidents happen and bikers do come off worse due to the lack of a metal cage but please do not fall into the trap of believing you can out brake a modern bike. Best case you'll need a new front end worst case the rider and pillion could be joining you backwards through the windscreen, helmet, back protector, body armour and all. An airbag won't help you out in that scenario.
|
>>please do not fall into the trap of believing you can out brake a modern bike
How can it be a trap, do you think I would follow too closely on the basis that I can stop quicker? That would be stupid in the extreme, it's hard to outbrake anybody who gets on the brakes a second or more before you do.
Far more likely that a bike will run into the back of a car, and nothing to do with braking performance. Numerous times I have been tailgated by apparently risk-blind bikers on the kind of roads this thread relates to.
I have no doubt that some bikes have very impressive brakes, but where are your numbers?
I have just had a good google and this is all I can find - references to an Autocar test in 2004, when the GSX R1000 took c. 2 seconds longer to stop from 100mph than a Caterham R500.
www.gunnarsgarage.se/Bilder/Fakta/April04.pdf
and this from a Pistonheads thread -
I've got some figures from the 27th April 2004 Autocar magazine:
Suzuki GSX-R 1000: 100mph - 0 in 5.63 seconds
Lotus Elise 111R - 4.09 seconds
Peugeot 206 Gti 180 - 4.39 seconds
Porsche 911 GT3 - 4.00 seconds (interestingly, the raw physics suggests that a 911 obtains a 50:50 weight distribution whilst braking fully).
The bike is beaten by everything, including a hot hatch. I'm fairly confident a standard hatch would also beat the bike.
So, the 911 is 1.63 seconds quicker under braking from 100-0. Call that about a second from a typical track top speed to a typical track cornering speed, and it can be seen why bikes often fail to live up to the lap times you'd expect round a race track, especially tight race tracks with lots of braking involved.
goo.gl/7rrPYW
I really don't know whether a bike under ideal conditions, with an experienced racer who can get up to maximum braking in a very short time, could out-stop a typical modern car, but given that the rider has the additional task of keeping the bike upright he'd better make sure he's on a straight bit with a perfect road surface if he's going to bet on it.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sat 17 Aug 13 at 09:07
|
There are too many instability and skill issues at play to prevent a biker being able to leverage 100% of his braking ability 100% of the time. You have a much better chance of doing that in a car.
And of course you have a much better chance of surviving the "couldn't brake in time" accident in a car.
|
You and I obviously drive different roads . When was the last time you did a 100-0 brake test on a public road. Those numbers are about as relevant as the 0-60 figures for Mavis popping down to the papershop.
Are you saying all cars brakes are up there with a stripped out Caterham ?
What I do know is I can scrub 30mph off my speed just by rolling off the throttle and sitting upright using my body as an airbrake. No racer skills required, the brake light is flashed to make any following driver aware of what's going on, not because any braking is actually required.
|
>> You and I obviously drive different roads .
Probably.
>>When was the last time you did a 100-0 brake test on a public road.
Never. and you?
>>Those numbers are about as relevant as
>> the 0-60 figures for Mavis popping down to the papershop.
They are the only figures produced so far. Have you any relevant ones?
>> Are you saying all cars brakes are up there with a stripped out Caterham ?
Not at all. The 206 GTI beat the bike too. Much nearer to an average car. But I agree, such extreme tests, conducted presumably by experienced testers (including the bike rider) aren't especially relevant to everyday driving.
>> What I do know is I can scrub 30mph off my speed just by rolling
>> off the throttle and sitting upright using my body as an airbrake. No racer skills
>> required, the brake light is flashed to make any following driver aware of what's going
>> on, not because any braking is actually required.
I am quite prepared to have my mind changed. All I have been saying is that it seems unlikely, in the real world, that a bike will generally outstop a car, for all the reasons mentioned - summed up by Zero very well as skill and stability factors. The only numbers we can find bear that out. This is just a pub discussion to me, I have no need to win an argument.
It makes no difference to how I drive either, whichever is best. I avoid all heavy braking if I get it right.
I do think that the adrenalin fuelled wannabes positioned 10 feet behind my offside rear light wouldn't pass a brake test, however good their stoppers, and I take great care not to present them with one by extending my own following distance if necessary, and I get them past as soon as possible.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sat 17 Aug 13 at 17:14
|
Agree this is a pub discussion.
The Pug you quote is two generations old, the assumption would be the new car is better. Some Japanese sports bike manufacturers have switched from Nissin to Brembo brakes, is that cost or performance based when Triumph are with Nissin?
The bike on your rear quarter panel is gambling the gap down the centre line as their get out. Worst thing you can do is grab a handful of front brake and lose the front end on a bike.
This is a discussion based on two people coming from different view points. We've both survived this long so must be doing something right. I'm currently in Italy and some of the bike riding makes me wince but they get away with it.
|
I live in rural N Yorks, just outside Settle, and am surprised the figures are so low. The market square and Olde Naked Man café and two chippies are a mecca for them.
Sometimes I like to 'make progress' but am always extra vigilant at weekends when the ton up plus boys appear up your chuff in a matter of seconds. I like to think I give them plenty of room between me and the car in front so that the entire convoy can overtake me en masse.
|
Thank you Ll though I'd like to think the more capable riders can make their own space although a thinking and thoughtful car driver should always receive a grateful wave, even If it is from the clutch bar end as passing.
Cheers !
|
Some of the above puts me in mind of a debate about whether it is better to be hanged or beheaded.
Signed: a former biker who was thinking about going that way again as recently as yesterday.
|
The debate around car v bike braking distances set me thinking.
What are the respective acceleration figures?
Who goes faster round a race track? There must be a few race tracks around the world which host both bike and car races.
|
>> The debate around car v bike braking distances set me thinking.
>>
>> What are the respective acceleration figures?
>>
>> Who goes faster round a race track? There must be a few race tracks around
>> the world which host both bike and car races.
It varies according to the nature of the track. A fast track with flowing bends will go to the bike, a tighter twistier track will go with the car. The bike can out accelerate a car like you wouldn't believe.
Silverstone for example
2012 motogp pole was 2:03
2012 F1 pole time 1:51
Trouble is, tracks are rarely in exactly the same configuration for bike and car events.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 17 Aug 13 at 10:09
|
The Superbikes were lapping Donington (longer 2.5 mile GP circuit) this year in as little as 1m27.4s in quali/practice.
(This link is all in km or km/h, including the circuit length which is labelled as miles)
goo.gl/1t6Qnt
The record for the GP circuit is held by a GP2 car at 1m18.4s
www.donington-park.co.uk/about-donington/lap-records/
(there are a lot of records there labelled as "GP circuit" that clearly aren't).
Not sure what that tells us.
|
On top of the figures quoted which show a car can out brake a bike in a straight line test there is also the practical fact that you can get away with mistakes far more easily on four wheels than on two. Lock the wheels on a car or still be on the brakes in a corner and unless you seriously overcook it you can still recover. Lock the front on a bike or have to use any more than the most gentle application of the brakes when banked into a turn and you're off.
Several times in the past one or other of the magazines have run a GP bike v F1 car test on a track and in all cases the car won. The bike had faster acceleration and the same top speed but lost so much time under braking and during cornering it's times were slower. Too many riders buy motorcycles which are only a shade down on performance from a race superbike and have no idea of theirs or the bikes limitations.
Last edited by: Robin Regal on Sat 17 Aug 13 at 11:34
|
Death toll rises in 'bikers' paradise - Shiny
