Can a motorbike out brake a car?

[Subike]

After reading this lot of junk, truth, facts and other gobbly gook
I have come to a conclusion.
The average driver of an average cage when pitted against
The average rider of an average Bike
will not win the Braking battle.
I think that with the superiour ( tounge in cheeck comment) awareness of the Biker, compared to the complacent awareness of a cage driver,
A bike will out brake a car every time.
Thats the practical side of it in my opinion, not the Factual side where the bike seems to loose out.
WWWEeeeeeeeee.......scrreeeeech.....thump! Oh Dear I didnt see you, sorry!

[Mikkel]

I am a greenskeeper.......

If so I wouldn't presume to tell you that you were wrong if you told me how to "keep the greens" - if you know what I mean.

Conveying understanding to others is the true sign of having mastered a subject.

In my experience, having to make excuses for an inability to explain things clearly indicates that one doesn't quite have a grasp of what one is talking about.

I agree - however explaining things to people who only pretend to listen and won't pay attention for more than 5 minutes is not possible. At least not if we're talking anything technical.

Would you be able to explain to me in 5 minutes how to construct a database to such a detail that I would be able to understand all of the underlying principle? (Or for the sake of argument, if you should doubt my ability to grasp the subject, someone else.)

I'll start my stopwatch when I post this.

[Ixion]

You do realise that the appeal to authority is the saddest of the classic logical fallacies, don't you?

Sez who ?

[Mikkel]

You do realise that the appeal to authority is the saddest of the classic logical fallacies, don't you?

You do realise that jumping to conclusions is the trademark of the narrowminded, don't you?

[The Stranger:Me]

Sez who ?

jrandom - post 121

[cowboyz]

If so I wouldn't presume to tell you that you were wrong if you told me how to "keep the greens" - if you know what I mean.


I agree - however explaining things to people who only pretend to listen and won't pay attention for more than 5 minutes is not possible. At least not if we're talking anything technical.

Would you be able to explain to me in 5 minutes how to construct a database to such a detail that I would be able to understand all of the underlying principle? (Or for the sake of argument, if you should doubt my ability to grasp the subject, someone else.)

I'll start my stopwatch when I post this.

Firstly, I never said you were wrong - even though you are.

Reality is a fantastic way of proving theory wrong.

The question at hand is can a motorbike outbrake a car. To compare apples with apples you have to take out all the "other" factors (reaction time, awareness etc)

I am not going to pull my pants down in public and stand on a soapbox as you have done because it is not my style. What I will do is agree with the mulitude before me who have said that a car will outbrake a motorbike.

[The Stranger:Me]

Would you be able to explain to me in 5 minutes how to construct a database to such a detail that I would be able to understand all of the underlying principle? (Or for the sake of argument, if you should doubt my ability to grasp the subject, someone else.)

I think you may have trouble explaining it to an academic, but I would put money on the greens keeper - so long as he hasn't been inhaling too much of his green.

[Mikkel]

Firstly, I never said you were wrong - even though you are.

Reality is a fantastic way of proving theory wrong.

The question at hand is can a motorbike outbrake a car. To compare apples with apples you have to take out all the "other" factors (reaction time, awareness etc)

I am not going to pull my pants down in public and stand on a soapbox as you have done because it is not my style. What I will do is agree with the mulitude before me who have said that a car will outbrake a motorbike.

Theory is a fantastic way of predicting - with some uncertainty - how reality is going to behave.

If you don't accept that I would suggest you throw away all of the comforts you enjoy and go live under a rock instead. Science - the entire spectrum of it - is what has given us the resemblance of civilisation that you see today. Science is based on theory confirmed through experimentation.

Indeed sometimes the theory is disproven by experimentation and you have to reformulate either the basics or perhaps just the hypothesis you are testing. If we're talking classical mechanics there are a few hundred years (about 400 give or take) of support for this theory. So I dare say the theory is not wrong - but yes to discuss it you need to make assumptions and simplifications. However, that doesn't mean that the discussion can not be interesting.

Such a discussion came into being as a result of this thread. Now considering this - would you care to enlighten me as to exactly where I was 'wrong'?

[Ixion]

Considerations of modern vehicle braking are not resolvable by classical physics. The forces are more complex than simple frictional mechanics.

Can a motorcycle outbreak a car requires specification of what motorcycle, what car, what road, what rider, what driver, what weather. An MV versus a Ferrari, probably the ferrari. GSXR750 versus Auntie Mabel's Corolla, probably the Gixxer (unless the road is wet) (or Boomer is riding, in which case the bike will outbrake the car, but then crash)

[cowboyz]

Theory is a fantastic way of predicting - with some uncertainty - how reality is going to behave.

Theroy is using variables. Variables, by definition, vary. Sure you can have an educated guess (call it a theory if you like) but experiment is where science comes into its own.
If you don't accept that I would suggest you throw away all of the comforts you enjoy and go live under a rock instead. Science - the entire spectrum of it - is what has given us the resemblance of civilisation that you see today. Science is based on theory confirmed through experimentation.
A little like, penacillin? shall we say?

Indeed sometimes the theory is disproven by experimentation and you have to reformulate either the basics or perhaps just the hypothesis you are testing. If we're talking classical mechanics there are a few hundred years (about 400 give or take) of support for this theory. So I dare say the theory is not wrong - but yes to discuss it you need to make assumptions and simplifications. However, that doesn't mean that the discussion can not be interesting.

Such a discussion came into being as a result of this thread. Now considering this - would you care to enlighten me as to exactly where I was 'wrong'?

Where you went wrong....
First and formost you tried to qualify your staement with a barrage of pant dropping, "I know this and everyone else is too dumb to grasp the concept"

For where I am sitting that was an attempt for credibility. Unfortunately, it doesnt work.

Then there is the whole point that cars CAN outbrake bikes. If you want to dig up all sorts of theroys that "prove" (remembering that nothing is proved on theroy) then by all means, go ahead. But you cant qualify a theroy with "I would explain it but there is no point because everyone else is too dumb to understand it".

It will not change the fact that cars stop faster than bikes.

[cowboyz]

Considerations of modern vehicle braking are not resolvable by classical physics. The forces are more complex than simple frictional mechanics.

Can a motorcycle outbreak a car requires specification of what motorcycle, what car, what road, what rider, what driver, what weather. An MV versus a Ferrari, probably the ferrari. GSXR750 versus Auntie Mabel's Corolla, probably the Gixxer (unless the road is wet) (or Boomer is riding, in which case the bike will outbrake the car, but then crash)

saying. but but but this superbike vs this POS car and taking one offs just doesnt cut it.

Overall, apples for apples - or close enough the car will win.

If anyone wanted to be really argumentative they could argue that $/m of braking performance and incorporate the cost of the vehicles. - but in the real world, it wont actually matter.

[Ixion]

But, by the definition of the question, you are not comparing apples and apples. You are comparing two quite different things.

I suspect that, nowdays, the average car (in so much as such a beast exists - let us assume that we take a random sample of 100 from the motorway at rush hour) ) is capable of out braking the average motorcycle (ditto) . But the average rider is capable of out braking the average driver. Where the two cross over is an imponderable. The question is as meaningless as saying "Are cars faster than motorbikes"

[cowboyz]

But, by the definition of the question, you are not comparing apples and apples. You are comparing two quite different things.

I suspect that, nowdays, the average car (in so much as such a beast exists - let us assume that we take a random sample of 100 from the motorway at rush hour) ) is capable of out braking the average motorcycle (ditto) . But the average rider is capable of out braking the average driver. Where the two cross over is an imponderable. The question is as meaningless as saying "Are cars faster than motorbikes"

true.

The same way you hear about how people "cleaned up" xxxxx on a set of twisties. - only to find out one of them didnt realise they were racing.

The only fair way to do it is side by side where both rider and driver know what is expected of them and either are muppets.

Then the car will win.

Have to spend another 8 years figuring out what is a "fair" contest and what the average bike is and what an average car is.

[marty]

I guess if you pit the pinnacle of each mode - a MotoGP bike and an F1 car.

The F1 would eat the GP bike for braking.

Discuss.

[koba]

That's not a standard beetle!


The problem about mechanics is that people think they can understand them without ever having spent 30 minutes studying it. And then they get pissy and demand that you explain it to them in 5 minutes. Which you obviously can not since they don't have the necessary prerequisites - which in turn means that you suck at explaining mechanics. Being an academic is neither gratifying nor respected these days.

I studied classical mechanics during the first year of uni - we had two 2 hour lectures, a 2 hour problem solving session and a written hand-in every week for two semesters of 13 weeks each. Then we had a couple of months to prepare for the oral exam. I got an A+ and then worked for 2 years as an assistant teacher, running a 2 hours problem solving session and correcting written hand-ins every week for 4 semesters of 13 weeks.

All that said, I shall be the first to admit I don't know everything about mechanics and that I'd be reluctant to try and solve any complex 3-dimensional problem. However, I would like to think that I have an, if only slightly, better understanding than Joe Average.

And now I think it's time to go have a beer! Another frustrating week of academia draws to a close and I'm looking forward to the weekend - not least to have my girlfriend back from her holiday.

Enjoy drinking beer do ya?

Seemed to like mine when you nicked it from the kendogs fidge....

wonk wonk Im so smart blah blah blah blah.

I will also admit that I dont understand alot, my earlier posts show as much but I really hate when people get all righteous about what they do know... alot of People WONT listen to you at all if they think you are a condecending prick, bear that in mind when you frustrated that know one wants to hear what you have to say!


Also it IS a standard beetle in all but the tyres and motor, standand tyres on the front and fats on the back, motor is slightly modifed using standard parts, they came out with faster motors than the one in mine tho.
Power aint going to make a difference to my little brake test that I want to perform out of personal interest and not to prove some silly point.