Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Perfect Line and Other Riding Myths' started by MotoMusicMark, Mar 26, 2010.
pretty sketchy reporting. Where's the meat?
and the rider had an air bag on no less.
there is never an excuse for reckless driving. Imho it’s no different than recklessly firing a gun in a crowded area. I’m sure in the latter case because it’s a gun in GB the perp would get 20 yrs.
Yes to protective kit (gear to us in the US), and yes to responsible driving / riding but I can't help but wonder if this particular type of accident is analogous to being struck by lightning.
not when the driver is clearly driving recklessly. Without that component that collision (not ‘accident’) would not have happened.
I am talking about the likelihood of you or me as a motorcyclist being involved in this type of collision.
Of course the auto driver, drunk and speeding, is likely to crash and even to kill someone.
riding 177S in AZ not long ago I had a guy come 1/3 over into my lane on a blind left hand (to me) turn. I had enough time to correct but 100’ more and I might not have. Obviously that driver couldn’t control his car in the turn at the posted 50mph (because he was obviously over it). I’m sure the wife sitting next to him gave him a few words on that one.
It's just a fact of life that cars end up in the wrong lane coming towards you sometimes. Whether they're distracted, intoxicated, reckless or sleepy really doesn't matter. Cars have head-ons "all the time" but on a motorcycle you're a hell of a lot more exposed and vulnerable.
I had one on a 2-laner where I could see the approaching car drifting across the center line into my lane. Of course my instincts had me slowing down as the car approached but what really sucked was that I had enough time to think about it but not enough time to completely avoid it. Even though it was mid-afternoon it looked to me like the oncoming driver was sleepy and nodding off. If both of us stayed on our current paths it was going to be a head-on so I was agonizing over my two options: ride it into the ditch on the right or swerve to the left assuming the car would stay on it's current trajectory. Swerving to the left didn't appeal to me because I know that when nodding drivers wake up their usual immediate reaction is to swerve back into their lane. So while still slowing as much as I could I got as far right as possible and just before I was about to commit to the ditch sure enough the driver woke up and swerved back into their lane at the last second. Then I pulled over and changed my armor.
Physics says no. The formula to calculate center of mass of a combined system of two bodies uses only the mass of the respective bodies and the locations of their repsective centers of mass. Here is the formula to calculate the combined CoM of a two body system along the y-(vertical) axis: CoM(y)=(m1*y1+m2*y2)/(m1+m2). y1 and y2 are the y-coordinates of the CoM of the object 1 and object 2 respectively. The point of connection between the two masses in the system is not even included in the calculation. By rising off the seat, the riderr raises his/her center of mass, while the bike's center of mass remains unchanged. The combined center of mass of the system rises. Math proves it.
Rising off the pegs helps by making the connection bettween the two masses less rigid, thus allowing them to move more independently of each other. But, it raises the center of mass of the bike/rider system as a matter of the laws of physics.
I think you are misunderstanding the problem. The rider is the control mechanism, the bike is the object being controlled. Putting weight on the pegs lowers the CoM of the object being controlled. The combined CoM matters a lot less than you think it would (in this particular situation).
Think of it this way...
If you strap a 20lb mass to the top of your helmet, it wouldn't change how the bike handled (you yourself would feel a little tipsy, though). If you strap that same mass to the rear seat of the bike, you would then notice a difference in handling.
I am not arguing that standing does not work. I am stating the physics fact that standing always raises the CoM of the rider, while making no change to the CoM of the bike. Hence, standing always raises the combined CoM of the bike and rider. Standing helps with bike/rider control in rough terrain DESPITE it raising the CoM. Standing does nothing to change the bike's CoM. What changes is the addition of a spring-like connection between the two masses in the system, which allows the two masses to move in different directions and speeds for brief periods of time. This mitigates peak forces (but not total forces) required to accelerate the bike and rider along all three axes. That is why standing helps.
The bike is not the only thing controlled by the rider. The laws of physics require that since the rider has mass he must also control that mass while he is riding the bike. Otherwise, he will fall off the bike. There is no motorcycling exception to Newton's Laws.
This CG thing has been beaten to death many times before. No need to do it again in this thread.
I'm not trying to argue basic physics...I'm just stating that you may not understand the application. Give me a few minutes and I'll draw you a picture.
Yea...I'll just go with this and save myself some time.
Corollary: Experience teaches us things we never wanted to learn in the first place.
There are old motorcyclists and bold motorcyclists, but you seldom meet an old bold motorcyclist
I know a few
One thing I learned from a better rider than myself is that a couple hours in an empty parking lot with some cones/markers and redoing some of the MSF course can be worth it's weight in gold. It's quite confidence building to develop your low-speed skills, particularly on bigger ADV bikes. If you haven't tried it in a few years, it's worth a revisit. Loads of fun. And if you end up doing drops or tip-overs, it's usually not a big deal at those speeds.
Yup. You can get a stack of those little soccer cones in a side case, top case, or backpack to take with you.
Cones, I don’t need no stinkin’ cones.