Stopping the bike ASAP by laying bike down or use both brakes? Emergency Situation

[tricky]

Forum Sponsor

Professor Julius Sumner Miller once told me that the force of gravity pulls the mass of both the bike and the rider towards the centre of the earth at 9.8 m/s squared. It doesn't pull either of them forward unless you are on a significantly steep descent. Mass cancels out on a flat surface. That is why some cars, trucks and bigger bikes can out brake some smaller bikes.

You are both talking about weight, not mass. The only thing that matters here is momentum, mass multiplied by velocity. Gravity plays no roll here. Because momentum in a system is constant, the rider and bike will both be going the same speed at the moment they are separated, it's just a matter of which one can slow down quicker due to the friction

EDIT: In regards to Baggsy's statement, a larger vehicle carries a lot more momentum than a smaller bike. The only reason it could stop faster is because it has better brakes

 

[slogan]

then why bother wearing helmets or leather?

Skydiving is risky, why have a parachute?

lets make all risky activities sucidal ones

:sign3: I said "rysky"... i did not speak about suicide here... or something I did not get???:laughing1:

Professor Julius Sumner Miller once told me that the force of gravity pulls the mass of both the bike and the rider towards the centre of the earth at 9.8 m/s squared. It doesn't pull either of them forward unless you are on a significantly steep descent. Mass cancels out on a flat surface. That is why some cars, trucks and bigger bikes can out brake some smaller bikes.

You sure you did go to school?

 

[EngineerJoe]

Most of us would make a balls up of the lay down and do ourselves more harm than good.

Actually, most of us would apply the brakes properly...

 

[OpenGambit]

EDIT: In regards to Baggsy's statement, a larger vehicle carries a lot more momentum than a smaller bike. The only reason it could stop faster is because it has better brakes

You are confusing contact patch with brakes.

 

[soto]

Professor Julius Sumner Miller once told me that the force of gravity pulls the mass of both the bike and the rider towards the centre of the earth at 9.8 m/s squared. It doesn't pull either of them forward. Mass cancels out on a flat surface. That is why some cars, trucks and bigger bikes can out brake some smaller bikes.

That prof needs his elbow patches removed

 

[Sushii]

before this turns into more of a **** on Sushii thread, Sushii you need to get some training under your belt, giving out advice based on you improperly using emergency techniques and watching techniques used for stunts. if you notice in the stunt they say the technique is very dangerous. they also go and change the the substrate from concrete/asphalt to sand to make it more slippery and fill in the cracks with sand. if the bike tires happen to grab while the rider is in the slide there is a good chance of high siding (remember amazon mentioning that's how she high sided?). the technique may be something you might practice in the dirt but with the brakes and tires we have today you're better off trying to stop with the braking equipment and not your skin/leather.

do your self a favour. sign up for the intermediate training offered by the various schools, sign up for a racer5 track day. get some instruction

You think i actually do most of the stuff i post? I just share them and let people discuss. I would never think about laying my bike down as an option... And when have i given advice based on improperly using emergency techniques? When was this an advice thread? When do i advise people to do this and that on my threads? This is a discussion board after all..,

 

[CruisnGrrl]

You are confusing contact patch with brakes.

three disks instead of two or three disks instead of a disk and a drum. better brakes with more pistons/abs that smaller bikes don't have. larger sport bikes tend to have signifficantly better braking tech.

 

[CruisnGrrl]

You think i actually do most of the stuff i post? I just share them and let people discuss. I would never think about laying my bike down as an option... And when have i given advice based on improperly using emergency techniques? When was this an advice thread? When do i advise people to do this and that on my threads? This is a discussion board after all..,

remember your other braking thread where you said one shouldn't use the back brake?

 

[Sushii]

remember your other braking thread where you said one shouldn't use the back brake?

Yes, i did research on that and i got mixed results. But the thread was still based on a question/opinion, i did not state, DO NOT USE YOUR REAR BRAKES WHEN BRAKING!

"Opinion: Do you use your rear brake when emergency braking? "

The thread also got mixed results...

 

[omnivore]

Am I the only one who sees the merit in what Caboose is posting?

Everyone saying that "laying er down" is a stategy is wrong. Period.
There is almost no situation (street riding) where intentionally laying a bike down to avoid a collision with another vehicle is a wise move. In every case, a good rider with control and precision should be able to brake and/or turn/swerve to put themselves in a better predicament than being on their *** sliding along the asphalt, possibly at the mercy of vehicular traffic that could drive over their carcass.
I have crashed on street and track, and many many times in the dirt....and have some forst hand experience of how far both me and my bike will slide. Of course the bike will ALWAYS slide farther than the rider....it is made of hard materials. But remember, where a sliding bike ends up has no direct relation to where an upright bike under hard braking could end up....bikes stop MUCH faster and controlled on tires!
Your leather clad body may or may not stop in a shorter distance than an upright bike, under control and braking hard. However, the bike, upright, still has the ability to navigate and negotiate directionally.....your carcass does not. I would also much prefer to hit things like curbs and manholes with the wheels of my bike rather than my bones, thank you.

 

[Chaos]

Everyone saying that "laying er down" is a stategy is wrong. Period.
There is almost no situation (street riding) where intentionally laying a bike down to avoid a collision with another vehicle is a wise move. In every case, a good rider with control and precision should be able to brake and/or turn/swerve to put themselves in a better predicament than being on their *** sliding along the asphalt, possibly at the mercy of vehicular traffic that could drive over their carcass.
I have crashed on street and track, and many many times in the dirt....and have some forst hand experience of how far both me and my bike will slide. Of course the bike will ALWAYS slide farther than the rider....it is made of hard materials. But remember, where a sliding bike ends up has no direct relation to where an upright bike under hard braking could end up....bikes stop MUCH faster and controlled on tires!
Your leather clad body may or may not stop in a shorter distance than an upright bike, under control and braking hard. However, the bike, upright, still has the ability to navigate and negotiate directionally.....your carcass does not. I would also much prefer to hit things like curbs and manholes with the wheels of my bike rather than my bones, thank you.

I would agree with this.

 

[caboose56]

You sure you did go to school?

Probably somewhere that taught him that gravitational mass and inertial mass are mathematically equivalent in such a scenario. The nerve!

Am I the only one who sees the merit in what Caboose is posting?

Apparently you're in the minority. Some just think I'm a huge *******.

 

[CruisnGrrl]

Probably somewhere that taught him that gravitational mass and inertial mass are mathematically equivalent in such a scenario. The nerve!



Apparently you're in the minority. Some just think I'm a huge *******.

I dunno I think you're hillarious, after talking to the people i am paid to talk to it doesn't surprise me that you would have to tell some one not to stick their dick in the toaster so having to tell them that braking effectively works better than crashing to avoid crashing is no surprise to me.

 

[imnothng]

Oh and another thing... if you hit the car then there's a better chance they will stick around and be held accountable for their portion of blame. If you miss the car and they take off then it's a single vehicle accident.

Haha, thats exactly what happened to my buddy that laid it down. The car stopped, saw him get up, then drove away. Luckily for him he only broke his foot in three places and bent his handlebar.

 

[CruisnGrrl]

Haha, thats exactly what happened to my buddy that laid it down. The car stopped, saw him get up, then drove away. Luckily for him he only broke his foot in three places and bent his handlebar.

wow that sucks. did he take riding lessons from Sushii?

 

[OpenGambit]

three disks instead of two or three disks instead of a disk and a drum. better brakes with more pistons/abs that smaller bikes don't have. larger sport bikes tend to have signifficantly better braking tech.

he is comparing cars to bikes, and any bike can lock up its tires, that means the brakes are good enough. its about amount of contact with the ground at that point.

 

[fastar1]

he is comparing cars to bikes, and any bike can lock up its tires, that means the brakes are good enough.

Another way of describing lockup is that the brakes seize. That's not a positive attribute for brakes. I could lock up a wheel using a stick between the spokes, but a stick is not a good braking device.

So no, it's not only about contact patch and the ability to lock the wheel. Strong brakes play an important role.

 

[OpenGambit]

Another way of describing lockup is that the brakes seize. That's not a positive attribute for brakes. I could lock up a wheel using a stick between the spokes, but a stick is not a good braking device.

So no, it's not only about contact patch and the ability to lock the wheel. Strong brakes play an important role.

The point is that the reason a car can outbrake a bike is because of its bigger tires and larger surface area touching the ground, not its "better" brakes.

 

[fastar1]

The point is that the reason a car can outbrake a bike is because of its bigger tires and larger surface area touching the ground, not its "better" brakes.

That's debatable too. What car, what bike? Anyways that beat up thread is a dead horse now.

 

[OpenGambit]

That's debatable too. What car, what bike? Anyways that beat up thread is a dead horse now.

debate it with yourself all you want. Its a general answer to a general comment.

Forum Sponsor