145mph with passenger yesterday

[jcyuhn]

I'm not really interested in jumping into this discussion. Suffice it to say I found the reaction a bit surprising, coming from a group that doesn't seem to be noted for obeying speed limits.

I've spent enough time across the pond that I feel the context of speeding is a bit different over there. As a point, speeds up to 100MPH are quite common and accepted on English Motorways. Yes, the limit is 70, but the fast lane is good for at least 90, and nobody worries about anything up to 110. As well, UK drivers are much better trained and more disciplined than US drivers. They have lane discipline, they are accustomed to being overtaken at high rates of speed, after passing they pull as far left as possible, etc. And UK motorways are better designed for high speed travel than U.S. interstates. The pavement is generally in better repair, the signage is better, and there are very few entraces/exits. My point being that 145 is fast, but it's not as fast over there as it is here. We in the U.S. are still a bunch of Puritans.

- JimY

 

[FJRZOOM]

Effortless, rock solid and still pulling like a train. I love this bike. :yahoo:
I will sit staring at the post box in the front door every morning for the next week no doubt, willing it not to open.

What does the back of your head gear look like??

 

[Clark Kent]

I'm not really interested in jumping into this discussion. Suffice it to say I found the reaction a bit surprising, coming from a group that doesn't seem to be noted for obeying speed limits.
I've spent enough time across the pond that I feel the context of speeding is a bit different over there. As a point, speeds up to 100MPH are quite common and accepted on English Motorways. Yes, the limit is 70, but the fast lane is good for at least 90, and nobody worries about anything up to 110. As well, UK drivers are much better trained and more disciplined than US drivers. They have lane discipline, they are accustomed to being overtaken at high rates of speed, after passing they pull as far left as possible, etc. And UK motorways are better designed for high speed travel than U.S. interstates. The pavement is generally in better repair, the signage is better, and there are very few entraces/exits. My point being that 145 is fast, but it's not as fast over there as it is here. We in the U.S. are still a bunch of Puritans.

- JimY

I hate to disagree, but hold on there big fellow. :stop:

I just got back from a trip to the British Isles. This trip I was in Ireland and Scotland. The last two trips were to England.

1. Their "Dual Carriage Ways" are about as good as our interstates, certianly no better. They are Very Few and far

All other roads are about 2/3rds the width of the US roads and have little or no shoulders. (Far far worse than any

secondary road in the USA.)

2. The drivers are no better than the mature US driver. They may be better than our teeagers, but not our adult population.

(The European drivers are more attentive to their driving. THEY HAVE TO BE---They have a road that is usually 2/3 the

width of ours.) It takes all the drivers attention to stay on the pavement.

3. The roads themselves are in about the same shape. In the highlands of Scotland the roads are very poor at best. They

are very old. The same is true of England in the Lake district and the Cornwall area. It's probably just like the USA, it

depends a great deal as to what area of England and the British Isles you are in.

3. I can't believe the signage statement. It is far worse in the British Isles than here in the USA, and it's not all that good in

here in the USA. Very few signs in Ireland and Scotlalnd. But I'm sure we needed them more than the locals.

4. The Duel Carriage Ways had a speed limit of 70 mph. Few drivers were going faster than 75 or 80. I never saw anyone

going anywhere near 90 or 110 mph. (It was April, so we only saw a few bikes, and they were all doing the speed limit or

lower.

(If you are not on a duel carriage way,ie: interstate, it's almost impossible to even go the speedlimit of 70 mph BECAUSE

of the poor and very narrow roads.)

So I for one will have to say that we here in the USA have better roads than almost all of the British Isles.

Now, Germany, They have good roads, and VERY aggressive drivers. Get in front of one in the high speed lane and you will see what I'm talking about.

Just one man's opinion.

CK :drinks:

 

[feejer222]

I'm not really interested in jumping into this discussion. Suffice it to say I found the reaction a bit surprising, coming from a group that doesn't seem to be noted for obeying speed limits.
I've spent enough time across the pond that I feel the context of speeding is a bit different over there. As a point, speeds up to 100MPH are quite common and accepted on English Motorways. Yes, the limit is 70, but the fast lane is good for at least 90, and nobody worries about anything up to 110. As well, UK drivers are much better trained and more disciplined than US drivers. They have lane discipline, they are accustomed to being overtaken at high rates of speed, after passing they pull as far left as possible, etc. And UK motorways are better designed for high speed travel than U.S. interstates. The pavement is generally in better repair, the signage is better, and there are very few entraces/exits. My point being that 145 is fast, but it's not as fast over there as it is here. We in the U.S. are still a bunch of Puritans.

- JimY

I hate to disagree, but hold on there big fellow. :stop:

I just got back from a trip to the British Isles. This trip I was in Ireland and Scotland. The last two trips were to England.

1. Their "Dual Carriage Ways" are about as good as our interstates, certianly no better. They are Very Few and far

All other roads are about 2/3rds the width of the US roads and have little or no shoulders. (Far far worse than any

secondary road in the USA.)

2. The drivers are no better than the mature US driver. They may be better than our teeagers, but not our adult population.

(The European drivers are more attentive to their driving. THEY HAVE TO BE---They have a road that is usually 2/3 the

width of ours.) It takes all the drivers attention to stay on the pavement.

3. The roads themselves are in about the same shape. In the highlands of Scotland the roads are very poor at best. They

are very old. The same is true of England in the Lake district and the Cornwall area. It's probably just like the USA, it

depends a great deal as to what area of England and the British Isles you are in.

3. I can't believe the signage statement. It is far worse in the British Isles than here in the USA, and it's not all that good in

here in the USA. Very few signs in Ireland and Scotlalnd. But I'm sure we needed them more than the locals.

4. The Duel Carriage Ways had a speed limit of 70 mph. Few drivers were going faster than 75 or 80. I never saw anyone

going anywhere near 90 or 110 mph. (It was April, so we only saw a few bikes, and they were all doing the speed limit or

lower.

(If you are not on a duel carriage way,ie: interstate, it's almost impossible to even go the speedlimit of 70 mph BECAUSE

of the poor and very narrow roads.)

So I for one will have to say that we here in the USA have better roads than almost all of the British Isles.

Now, Germany, They have good roads, and VERY aggressive drivers. Get in front of one in the high speed lane and you will see what I'm talking about.

Just one man's opinion.

CK :drinks:

Total and utter BS. I have an 8 lane motorway going past my home and they are ALL OVER the country. Where the f**k did you visit? It wasn't the UK.

A dual carraigeway is a 4 lane road that is not restricted by motorway rules. ie anyone can use them. Only qualified drivers can use the motorways.

I rode home from Liverpool on Sunday (about 45 miles) at 90-100mph most of the way, in traffic all doing the same speed in the fast lane.

 

[juniorfjr]

My 2 cents. These things are inherently dangerous. If you want to avoid all risks, never leave home. When I get on the bike, there is an understanding that I could crash. Just like ATGATT, it is a personal choice. And one can survive a get off at incredible speeds, as long as the stop isn't too sudden. jr

 

[Clark Kent]

I'm not really interested in jumping into this discussion. Suffice it to say I found the reaction a bit surprising, coming from a group that doesn't seem to be noted for obeying speed limits.
I've spent enough time across the pond that I feel the context of speeding is a bit different over there. As a point, speeds up to 100MPH are quite common and accepted on English Motorways. Yes, the limit is 70, but the fast lane is good for at least 90, and nobody worries about anything up to 110. As well, UK drivers are much better trained and more disciplined than US drivers. They have lane discipline, they are accustomed to being overtaken at high rates of speed, after passing they pull as far left as possible, etc. And UK motorways are better designed for high speed travel than U.S. interstates. The pavement is generally in better repair, the signage is better, and there are very few entraces/exits. My point being that 145 is fast, but it's not as fast over there as it is here. We in the U.S. are still a bunch of Puritans.

- JimY

I hate to disagree, but hold on there big fellow. :stop:

I just got back from a trip to the British Isles. This trip I was in Ireland and Scotland. The last two trips were to England.

1. Their "Dual Carriage Ways" are about as good as our interstates, certianly no better. They are Very Few and far

All other roads are about 2/3rds the width of the US roads and have little or no shoulders. (Far far worse than any

secondary road in the USA.)

2. The drivers are no better than the mature US driver. They may be better than our teeagers, but not our adult population.

(The European drivers are more attentive to their driving. THEY HAVE TO BE---They have a road that is usually 2/3 the

width of ours.) It takes all the drivers attention to stay on the pavement.

3. The roads themselves are in about the same shape. In the highlands of Scotland the roads are very poor at best. They

are very old. The same is true of England in the Lake district and the Cornwall area. It's probably just like the USA, it

depends a great deal as to what area of England and the British Isles you are in.

3. I can't believe the signage statement. It is far worse in the British Isles than here in the USA, and it's not all that good in

here in the USA. Very few signs in Ireland and Scotlalnd. But I'm sure we needed them more than the locals.

4. The Duel Carriage Ways had a speed limit of 70 mph. Few drivers were going faster than 75 or 80. I never saw anyone

going anywhere near 90 or 110 mph. (It was April, so we only saw a few bikes, and they were all doing the speed limit or

lower.

(If you are not on a duel carriage way,ie: interstate, it's almost impossible to even go the speedlimit of 70 mph BECAUSE

of the poor and very narrow roads.)

So I for one will have to say that we here in the USA have better roads than almost all of the British Isles.

Now, Germany, They have good roads, and VERY aggressive drivers. Get in front of one in the high speed lane and you will see what I'm talking about.

Just one man's opinion.

CK :drinks:

Total and utter BS. I have an 8 lane motorway going past my home and they are ALL OVER the country. Where the f**k did you visit? It wasn't the UK.

A dual carraigeway is a 4 lane road that is not restricted by motorway rules. ie anyone can use them. Only qualified drivers can use the motorways.

I rode home from Liverpool on Sunday (about 45 miles) at 90-100mph most of the way, in traffic all doing the same speed in the fast lane.

Right on old chap and all that English stuff.

Sorry to step on your toes. I have only visited England and the other parts of the British Isles 6 or 7 times over the last 30 years. I was just putting in my 2 cents (pence), worth to you. If you will re-read the last line in my post, it says, "Just one man's opinion."

You also asked where I visited. May I refer you back to my post, line 2 (two), Ireland and Scotland. Line 10 (ten) refers to

the Lake district and Cornwall.

I could make the same statement about your comments, ie: When have you been? I have never, ever, seen the main body of traffic ALL driving at speeds of 90 to 100 mph anywhere in England or any part of the British Isles I have been.

Here is what Wikipedia, has to say about Motorway:

Motorway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Motorway symbol in UK, France and Ireland. Similar symbols are used in some other countries.Motorway is the term used in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Ireland and some other Commonwealth nations for both a type of road and a classification or designation. Motorways are high capacity highways designed to safely carry fast motor traffic, usually between cities.

"In the UK they are predominantly dual-carriageway roads, usually with three lanes in each direction, although four-lane and two-lane carriageways are also common, and all have grade-separated access."

Looks like were both a bit right and a bit wrong. How about splitting the difference and having a beer (pint)?

CK

 

[feejer222]

OK I'm not out for an argument. Just that you were stating facts that were wrong. Not really intersted in what Wikpedia says the description is. Let me state how I see British roads having lived here all my life and driven on them for 36 years.

B classification roads: Residential side roads in and around housing estates & country lanes. All 30mph limit.

A classifacation roads: The majority of major roads through and around the towns and cities Usually 30mph limit unless signed other. Some can be as high as 60mph in rural areas.

Dual carriageways: 4 Lane highway split by a barrier. (Usually no safety lanes). This will have breaks so that you can turn at lights or to get into side roads on either side of the dual carriageway. Usually 40, 50 or 60mph limit.

Motorways: Minimum 8 lanes including 2 emergency lanes. A lot are currently being widened. You can only travel in 1 direction. To change you have to exit and re-join the opposit carriageway. You cannot cross the central reservation. You have to have a full licence to use them. Pedestrians, cyclists, mopeds & animals are not allowed.70mph Limit universally unless extreme conditions. These roads are everywhere you go in the main body of the country. They link all the cities and usually form circular roads around the cities. They also quite often pass through the suburbs. I live 5 miles outside Manchester city centre and have an 8 lane passing 1/2 a mile away. The M60.

When traveling on the motorway on my bike, in my car or in my van I seldom go under 70. The outside lane usually travels at between 80 & 100 depending on the volume of traffic. If you get a quiet stretch the fast lane will average 95. The volume of traffic is the only thing that slows it down, or a cop on a bridge with a radar gun.

Quite a lot these days we are seeing ''average speed cameras'' these have number plate recognition and take your number as you enter a section of motorway. You are then checked out at the other end and your average speed is calculated. The problem then comes when the family is insured to drive a vehicle and no-one owns up to who was driving. Not sure what happens then it's all a bit new.

No offence taken. From what you say I really don't think you have seen anything other than extreme rural areas of this country. :drinks:

 

[mcatrophy]

OK I'm not out for an argument. ... driven on them for 36 years.

Same caveat - I'm not arguing, just my point of view

B classification roads: Residential side roads in and around housing estates & country lanes. All 30mph limit.

Many 'B' roads are out of towns and then usually have a 60 limit.

Motorways: Minimum 8 lanes including 2 emergency lanes.

Minimum 6 including emergency lanes (the emergency lane is universally known as the "hard shoulder").

When travelling on the motorway on my bike, in my car or in my van I seldom go under 70. The outside lane usually travels at between 80 & 100 depending on the volume of traffic. If you get a quiet stretch the fast lane will average 95. The volume of traffic is the only thing that slows it down, or a cop on a bridge with a radar gun.

Agreed. There seems to be two types of car driver, those who travel below the 70 limit (at say 55 to 60) and those above (80 plus). 70 is only used for congestion and overtaking police patrol cars.

Quite a lot these days we are seeing ''average speed cameras ... and no-one owns up to who was driving. Not sure what happens then it's all a bit new.

I believe is now that the registered owner commits an offence by not saying who was driving, whether he knows or not.

From what you say I really don't think you have seen anything other than extreme rural areas of this country.

One of the aspects of English (and Scotland and Wales) is the huge diversity of conditions of all types, including roads, that you find within quite short distances.

While my State-side motoring is fairly limited (mostly Florida and some New England and New York), whatever area you are in the type of road is consistent for huge distances.

In the UK you can travel from a country lane, join an 8-lane Motorway, travel for hundreds of miles, come off within a city boundary, find A-roads that are built to near-motorway standards, find A-roads that are single lane roads with only enough width for one vehicle (if you're lucky there will be passing places periodically).

This (if memory serves) is an A road in Scotland, 60 limit. In the middle you can see a motorcyclist going by a car in a passing place.

You can see the full-size picture:Clicky (1.5M, but you can make out the detail).

To see more pictures, go Clicky

Back on topic, on my previous mount, I did do over 140 solo. It was impressive, it was on a Scottish single lane road, it was with a group (but absolutely NOT racing), it was straight, weather perfect, visibility perfect, could see it was clear for miles in every direction (no animals, no other road users, no police). In retrospect, I think it was stupid. But I did enjoy it!

 

[Clark Kent]

OK I'm not out for an argument. Just that you were stating facts that were wrong. Not really intersted in what Wikpedia says the description is. Let me state how I see British roads having lived here all my life and driven on them for 36 years.
B classification roads: Residential side roads in and around housing estates & country lanes. All 30mph limit.

A classifacation roads: The majority of major roads through and around the towns and cities Usually 30mph limit unless signed other. Some can be as high as 60mph in rural areas.

Dual carriageways: 4 Lane highway split by a barrier. (Usually no safety lanes). This will have breaks so that you can turn at lights or to get into side roads on either side of the dual carriageway. Usually 40, 50 or 60mph limit.

Motorways: Minimum 8 lanes including 2 emergency lanes. A lot are currently being widened. You can only travel in 1 direction. To change you have to exit and re-join the opposit carriageway. You cannot cross the central reservation. You have to have a full licence to use them. Pedestrians, cyclists, mopeds & animals are not allowed.70mph Limit universally unless extreme conditions. These roads are everywhere you go in the main body of the country. They link all the cities and usually form circular roads around the cities. They also quite often pass through the suburbs. I live 5 miles outside Manchester city centre and have an 8 lane passing 1/2 a mile away. The M60.

When traveling on the motorway on my bike, in my car or in my van I seldom go under 70. The outside lane usually travels at between 80 & 100 depending on the volume of traffic. If you get a quiet stretch the fast lane will average 95. The volume of traffic is the only thing that slows it down, or a cop on a bridge with a radar gun.

Quite a lot these days we are seeing ''average speed cameras'' these have number plate recognition and take your number as you enter a section of motorway. You are then checked out at the other end and your average speed is calculated. The problem then comes when the family is insured to drive a vehicle and no-one owns up to who was driving. Not sure what happens then it's all a bit new.

No offence taken. From what you say I really don't think you have seen anything other than extreme rural areas of this country. :drinks:

WOW, what a great explanation. You should apply for a job at Wikpedia! Thanks for the corrections to Wikepedia's explination.

You are correct. The majority of the roads I have been on are the back country and rural roads. I have been on some 6 lane roads in and around London. They were always so packed you couldn't get much over 70 if you tried. (and don't forget the cameras!)

Loved the photo of the bike passing a car in passing pulloff! I drove a lot of roads like that.

Now if you could only fix their BEER! God is it bitter! I'm glad to say that I found more Millers MGD and Bud in Ireland and Scotland than here in Motana. But here in Montana, they sell horse piss as a micor brew! So go figure.

I wish you clear roads (Motorways) and safe high speed runs, whatever that speed might be!

You picked a GREAT country to live in. England is our best Friend! It's a great country to live in or visit!

:yahoo:

CK

PS: I took the same trip MCATROPHY TOOK. If you look at his photo of a bike passing the car in the "car pull off area" I'm the one in the car!

 

[RadioHowie]

The degraded gist of this thread reminds me of a conversation I had a couple of years ago with one of my subcontractors, a radio tower constructor.

We were putting up a 12 hundred footer in Central Florida for one of the radio stations the company I work for was building. I was station manager at the time so I had to "be there" to make sure safety regs, FAA regs, FCC regs, etc., were being adhered to.

I was talking to Dan, owner of the tower contruction company, during a lunch break. Asked him, "doesn't it bother you (fear) to be climbing so high with just a pissant safety belt between you and certain death?" His answer both surprised and enlightened me..."I'm only afraid 'til I hit about a hundred feet."

Had to think about that one for a minute. He was ONLY afraid of spending the rest of his life as a cripple if he survived a "minor" fall. He figured if he was up over 100 feet, he was dead for sure if he fell, and it was fear of permanent disability, not death, that was his major fear.

 

[odot]

It's a long way to the top if you want to rock and roll.......

 

[dragonchef]

I fell from a stone wall/embankment about 4 feet on to some pavers last August (twisted my ankle while walking though some dirt/grassy area). Landed face forward with my arm tucked in front of me and ruptured my spleen. Did not know it until I passed out 8 hours later (slow bleeder....lucky). Took the doc another 90 minutes to figure it out, although I told him that I thought it was the spleen up front. About 3 seconds into the abdominal ultra-sound, he whipped out the cell and had the surgeon on the line and in the hospital quickly. Four hours of surgery and a week in intensive care, I made it.

Here are my lessons learned. Fall hard, go to the doc. Don't wait.

Live each day .... cause no promise of tomorrow.

End result: stopped dreaming and will get my FJR in less than a month......

 

[Cdogman]

So to say that you WONT survive a 145 crash is silly.

One of my all-time biggest pet peeves: Representing opinion as fact.

Also way up on the list: Apologizing for something you'll do again sooner or later.

[SIZE=36pt]+1 !![/SIZE]

 

[feejer222]

Do you think if you jumped of the top of a 1200 foot tower you would reach 145mph before stopping?

Remember if you do fall 1200 feet it's the very last one thats the most dangerous! :lol:

I hate heights.

 

[gr8eyes]

feej figure out how fast 32ft/sec is. thats how fast you'l be going when you hit.

 

[Cdogman]

Mebbe I am off my rocker but would that formula be

32 x 60 x 60 / 5280

Or 32 feet times 60 seconds, times 60 minutes = distance in one hour

Divided by 5280 (a mile) = MPH = 21.8 MPH, Where did I go wrong?

Got it

For your perusal

Bibliographic EntryResult

(w/surrounding text)Standardized

ResultTipler, Paul A. College Physics. New York: Worth, 1987: 105."For a skydiver with parachute closed, the terminal velocity is about 200 km/h."56 m/s

Ardley, Neil. Dictionary of Science: 2000 Key Words Arranged Thematically. London: Dorling Kindersley, 1994: 57."The terminal velocity of this skydiver is about 124 mph (200 kph)."55.6 m/s

Relating to Velocities. Cockpit Physics. United States Air Force Academy Physics Department."Skydiver 54 m/s"54 m/s

Bueche, Fredrick. Principles of Physics. New York: McGraw Hill, 1977: 64."The more compact and dense the object, the higher its terminal velocity will be. Typical examples are the following: raindrop, 25 ft/s, human being, 250 ft/s."76 m/s

Falling Feather. Science Snacks. Exploratorium."The terminal velocity of a falling human being with arms and legs outstretched is about 120 miles per hour (192 km per hour) - slower than a lead balloon, but a good deal faster than a feather!"53 m/s

 

[Clark Kent]

feej figure out how fast 32ft/sec is. thats how fast you'l be going when you hit.

As superman, I'm just trying to figure that out --------32 fps. 1200' tall hmmmmmm, I would hit the ground in ----.

FOOLED YOU ALL ! Remember, I can fly. I would just fly away.

CK

 

[RadioHowie]

Do you think if you jumped of the top of a 1200 foot tower you would reach 145mph before stopping?
Remember if you do fall 1200 feet it's the very last one thats the most dangerous! :lol:

I hate heights.

It ain't the fall that kills you...it's the sudden stop!

The medical terminology is "deceleration sickness". :blink:

 

[mcatrophy]

Mebbe I am off my rocker but would that formula be
32 x 60 x 60 / 5280

Or 32 feet times 60 seconds, times 60 minutes = distance in one hour

Divided by 5280 (a mile) = MPH = 21.8 MPH, Where did I go wrong?

Got it

For your perusal

Bibliographic EntryResult

(w/surrounding text)Standardized

ResultTipler, Paul A. College Physics. New York: Worth, 1987: 105."For a skydiver with parachute closed, the terminal velocity is about 200 km/h."56 m/s

Ardley, Neil. Dictionary of Science: 2000 Key Words Arranged Thematically. London: Dorling Kindersley, 1994: 57."The terminal velocity of this skydiver is about 124 mph (200 kph)."55.6 m/s

Relating to Velocities. Cockpit Physics. United States Air Force Academy Physics Department."Skydiver 54 m/s"54 m/s

Bueche, Fredrick. Principles of Physics. New York: McGraw Hill, 1977: 64."The more compact and dense the object, the higher its terminal velocity will be. Typical examples are the following: raindrop, 25 ft/s, human being, 250 ft/s."76 m/s

Falling Feather. Science Snacks. Exploratorium."The terminal velocity of a falling human being with arms and legs outstretched is about 120 miles per hour (192 km per hour) - slower than a lead balloon, but a good deal faster than a feather!"53 m/s

Try:

V x V = U x U +2 x F x S

where V is final velocity

U is initial velocity

F is acceleration

S is distance.

So, final velocity = square root of 2 * 32.2 * 1200

= 228 ft/second or 189 mph (approximately)

So I guess you reach terminal velocity.

 

[RadioHowie]

Try:V x V = U x U +2 x F x S

where V is final velocity

U is initial velocity

F is acceleration

S is distance.

So, final velocity = square root of 2 * 32.2 * 1200

= 228 ft/second or 189 mph (approximately)

So I guess you reach terminal velocity.

Hmmmm...228fps doesn't work out to 189mph. One hour =3600 seconds so 3600 X 228 = 820,800 feet per hour

Divide 820,800 feet per hour by 5280 feet = ~155mph. That would be the terminal velocity falling from 1200 feet according to the results of your formula. However, that would be the "ideal" terminal velocity were you falling in a vacuum, that is, without any wind resistance. Figure in wind resistance and the 120mph terminal velocity mentioned earlier is quite feasible. So to duplicate a fall from 1200 feet, spool up your FJR to 120 and point it at a bridge abutment. Or drop down to 60 and go take on a dump truck head-on that's doing 60. Same effect. h34r: