|
Krakkles posted:* - "There are two types of riders, those who have crashed and those who will crash." I think that's unnecessarily fatalistic. One of my father's friends has been riding more than 40 years and has never had a bad crash -- he's come off, sure, but never broken any bones and to hear him tell it all of his mistakes were in the first couple of years of riding. Indeed, I've read studies that show over and over again that the longer you go on riding without crashing, the less likely you are to have a bad accident in the future. Saying "everyone will crash" creates an expectation for a situation that doesn't have to come to pass. Of course, you still want to encourage people to wear gear, but I think a better way of saying that is "you are now participating in a dangerous sport, but wearing protective clothing can drastically reduce the consequences if something goes wrong." Then show them pictures of the CAT scan of the guy who crashed without a full-face helmet. e: ReelBigLizard posted:It's a personal choice and a balance of convenience/safety I'm happy with. Ultimately this is what it comes down to. There are certain choices you can make to be objectively safer when riding, but if all you were concerned about was being safe you wouldn't be riding a motorcycle in the first place. Everyone finds their own balance and preference and deals with the consequences. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Jul 11, 2012 |
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 22:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 14:09 |
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I think that's unnecessarily fatalistic. One of my father's friends has been riding more than 40 years and has never had a bad crash -- he's come off, sure, but never broken any bones and to hear him tell it all of his mistakes were in the first couple of years of riding. Indeed, I've read studies that show over and over again that the longer you go on riding without crashing, the less likely you are to have a bad accident in the future. Saying "everyone will crash" creates an expectation for a situation that doesn't have to come to pass.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 22:11
|
|
|
Krakkles posted:(#2 roughly approximates what Z3n said (you slid for less than .2-.5 seconds on any particular area of the denim) so yes, it's certainly possible.) Except that I said the jeans i was wearing *did* tear, so they protected my skin from the amount of energy it took to do that, so...
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 22:13
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Except that I said the jeans i was wearing *did* tear, so they protected my skin from the amount of energy it took to do that, so... Unless you somehow executed this completely accidental motorcycle crash in such a precise manner so as to have planned the exact amount of sliding each part of your lower body would encounter on each particular area of denim to be less than .2-.5 seconds? The point is that yes, denim might protect you for .2-.5 seconds of sliding. There is a ridiculous likelihood that you will slide for more than .2-.5 seconds in a motorcycle accident. Ignoring the fact that abrasive injuries can be transmitted through denim without tearing it, it is still not wise to plan on that for protection. And never mind all the potential situations that could have lead to tears in your jeans that didn't involve you sliding on them. Krakkles fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Jul 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 22:16
|
|
|
Krakkles posted:So you slid for exactly .2-.5 seconds. Congratulations, you got lucky. I am not denying that there are much much better things to crash in than denim. I don't know how often, and in how many different ways, you want me to say this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 22:20
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:I am not denying that there are much much better things to crash in than denim. I don't know how often, and in how many different ways, you want me to say this. You see that red text under his name? If you aren't still posting in this thread for your (and frankly mine and other's) amusement you should give it up. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 22:26
|
|
|
quote:And never mind all the potential situations that could have lead to tears in your jeans that didn't involve you sliding on them. Well, if you're an SV rider, the situations where women who are just overcome by the draw of your motorcycle and rip off your pants in an animal lust is worth considering.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 22:27
|
|
|
nsaP posted:You see that red text under his name? If you aren't still posting in this thread for your (and frankly mine and other's) amusement you should give it up. I always give even BRCTs the benefit of the doubt, it's my greatest character flaw.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 22:28
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:I am not denying that there are much much better things to crash in than denim. I don't know how often, and in how many different ways, you want me to say this. Yes, you posted that you agree that there are better things to crash in than denim. You posted twice, including the quote above, and this one: goddamnedtwisto posted:I'm arguing for number 2, and I don't think you're arguing for 1 or 3 because you're not a dribbling idiot. Note that I acknowledge (repeatedly) that 2 does not mean that there are not much, much better things to be crashing in. ... acknowledging that there are much better things to crash in than denim, and this final one is the only one where you didn't also attempt to make an argument for why denim is fine to crash in. So ... I'm not sure what you want from me. goddamnedtwisto posted:I always give even BRCTs the benefit of the doubt, it's my greatest character flaw.   (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 22:29
|
|
|
This thread has, once again, gone meta.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
Z3n posted:Seconds of Drag on Asphalt Before Getting Holes: Can we get some context to this please? Sorry I'm a scientist and this chart is all but useless. I went outside and dragged my jeans on the driveway for about two seconds at 1 mph and it didn't form holes so I'm going to assume there's more to this that actually makes it informative. Also does the source to this have any of the mass or thickness to these materials? And how do they define "poor" kevlar?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
As a mother,...I ride in hockey gear my kids have out grown
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 01:42
|
|
|
Synonamess Botch posted:Can we get some context to this please? Sorry I'm a scientist and this chart is all but useless. I went outside and dragged my jeans on the driveway for about two seconds at 1 mph and it didn't form holes so I'm going to assume there's more to this that actually makes it informative. Also does the source to this have any of the mass or thickness to these materials? And how do they define "poor" kevlar? They're relative numbers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 03:01
|
|
|
Synonamess Botch posted:Can we get some context to this please? I don't have any context for that one, but I saw a similar study once that I remember more details about. They took some 50-lb sandbags and sewed a patch of the material under test to the bottom, then tied a rope to the bag and tied that down in the bed of a pickup truck. They got the truck up to 80 kph on an empty road (50 mph), dropped the bag on the road at a specific painted line, and dragged it behind the truck at speed until the material wore out and the sand started to spill. The results were given in meters. denim (no weight given): 2m fashion-weight leather: 3m motorcycle-grade cordura ("textile"): about 20m racing leather: 45m
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 04:40
|
|
|
Grasshoppers, there was once a product on the market that would monkey wrench this entire argument. 'Twas a time of double-digit mortgage rates, gas rationing, and toilet paper panics. Levi's were a luxury--I poo poo you not. Enter Sears Roebuck and DuPont. I speak of Toughskins. I'll let others elaborate: You could get SHANKED wearing Toughskins and walk away without a scratch. You could drag a kid behind a car for 10 blocks and never wear a hole in them. The materials were Dacron Type 59 polyester, DuPont 420 nylon, and cotton...I can say with 100% confidence and accuracy that Toughskins are stain proof, creek proof, woods proof, under the house proof, on the roof proof, garden proof, football proof, garage proof, and basically kicking all sorts of rear end proof, if that means anything, but it doesn’t have to because I have on a pair of rain forest green Toughskins that will repel a cannon shot harpoon. If you never wore them, then you really, really do not know what shame is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 05:00
|
|
|
Marv Hushman posted:Grasshoppers, there was once a product on the market that would monkey wrench this entire argument. 'Twas a time of double-digit mortgage rates, gas rationing, and toilet paper panics. Levi's were a luxury--I poo poo you not. Enter Sears Roebuck and DuPont. I speak of Toughskins. I'll let others elaborate: In 2d grade I had a matching set of Toughskins jacket and jeans in GREEN. I know this because my school picture shows me ROCKING that pimp rear end outfit.  I own my shame. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 16:03
|
|
|
Z3n posted:
I too would like some additional context on this, like the speeds involved because if my textile gloves are only good for half a second it's time to go shopping for some leather ones!
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 16:17
|
|
|
Good old toughskins. I still believe my ICON kevlar jeans are designed after toughskins, they look and feel the same, including the "Why are these cut so that when I bend over my rear end crack shows?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 16:26
|
|
|
ReformedNiceGuy posted:I too would like some additional context on this, like the speeds involved because if my textile gloves are only good for half a second it's time to go shopping for some leather ones! Crashes are all different. Two people on identical bikes wearing identical gear going the same speed could fall off and get totally different injuries. You might wear out the palm of your racing leather glove in 0.5 seconds, or you might drag your textile glove at a slightly different angle and only get some little scratches on it. All you can ever say is what I said earlier: leather is better than nylon is better than denim is better than nothing. Beyond that it's a crap-shoot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 16:44
|
|
|
Just grabbed a basic link: http://www.ninjette.org/forums/showthread.php?t=70923 There's the other things that were measured. Looks like that's the time to failure when the sample is placed under a 75 pound bag and dragged behind a truck. I think it's an offshoot of this study: http://www.trainwreckstudios.net/abrasion/
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 17:02
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Crashes are all different. Two people on identical bikes wearing identical gear going the same speed could fall off and get totally different injuries. You might wear out the palm of your racing leather glove in 0.5 seconds, or you might drag your textile glove at a slightly different angle and only get some little scratches on it. All you can ever say is what I said earlier: leather is better than nylon is better than denim is better than nothing. Beyond that it's a crap-shoot. Yeah decent cloves will have reinforcement around areas like the outside heel of your hand that are the most likely to hit the ground in a crash. I think it's pretty rare for your hands to actually take much damage after the initial impact because although most people put out their hands to cushion the blow, once you've hit the ground you'll either be sliding on your back/side/belly/knees/elbows or rolling. Of course if you had gloves as thick as, say, the knee or elbow on leathers you'd probably crash in the first 100m because they'd be too stiff to brake or change gear. Alternatively they'd be too stiff to hit the starter or the throttle so that might actually make them the safest possible riding gear because you'd never leave the driveway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 17:28
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Crashes are all different. Two people on identical bikes wearing identical gear going the same speed could fall off and get totally different injuries. You might wear out the palm of your racing leather glove in 0.5 seconds, or you might drag your textile glove at a slightly different angle and only get some little scratches on it. All you can ever say is what I said earlier: leather is better than nylon is better than denim is better than nothing. Beyond that it's a crap-shoot. I understand what you're saying about every crash being different however the post I quoted implies that some sort of test has been performed on these various materials and that the quoted figures are the results. However if you're going to quote these figures then you shouldn't be surprised when people ask for clarification as they are meaningless without any context. For example saying these results were obtained by applying x amount of downwards force at a speed of y this is the amount of time taken to burn through material z allows people to draw a meaningful conclusion. I personally wear waterproof textile gloves (UK weather is ace), should I take these results to imply that the my gloves are good for half a second if I come off at 30, 60, 90? Sorry if this seems like an attack, I just find the woolly quoting of made up statistics as fact annoying. Edit: Erk! Between me typing this up and posting it some figures have been posted. Apologies!
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2012 00:24
|
|
|
Somebody mentioned replica/real Repsol CBRs (with a photo) the other day in CA, and that's how I knew what I was looking at today in traffic. With two people on it, in shorts and T-shirts, the front one in a full-face, the rear with just a baseball hat and barefoot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2012 01:54
|
|
|
S'alright, literbikes are good for 100mph in first gear, no need to shift.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2012 03:26
|
|
|
ReformedNiceGuy posted:However if you're going to quote these figures then you shouldn't be surprised when people ask for clarification as they are meaningless without any context. There is no meaningful conclusion you can draw from the exact numbers, though. Yes, they could (probably did) specify that the test was be pushing the material sample against the road with 50 kilograms across 0.1 square meters at 80km/h or whatever, but that's useless information for anything other than duplicating the tests. Your gloves might have slid for half a second in the specific circumstances they tested, but you can't choose to only crash in the same manner as the tests. You could hit a sharp concrete edge with the heel of your hand and rip out a racing gauntlet instantly, or you could just graze along the ground in your padded nylon gloves at 100km/h for several seconds, just roughening the surface. All that you need to know is that The Best protection is leather, and the numbers give you an idea of how protective a given material is compared to The Best. You should take the results as "leather gloves would last 2 to 3 times longer in a slide than my textile gloves", not "I can slide 30 feet before it wears into my hands" or something. Real crashes are too chaotic and dynamic to make any kind of judgement like that. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 07:18 on Jul 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2012 07:14
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:There is no meaningful conclusion you can draw from the exact numbers, though. Yes, they could (probably did) specify that the test was be pushing the material sample against the road with 50 kilograms across 0.1 square meters at 80km/h or whatever, but that's useless information for anything other than duplicating the tests. Your gloves might have slid for half a second in the specific circumstances they tested, but you can't choose to only crash in the same manner as the tests. You could hit a sharp concrete edge with the heel of your hand and rip out a racing gauntlet instantly, or you could just graze along the ground in your padded nylon gloves at 100km/h for several seconds, just roughening the surface. Maybe I'm a bit of a sperg but I prefer to know the facts and figures behind stuff like that as, to my mind, it lets you apply them to decisions of what to wear and when. I think that looking solely at the protection levels offered by your gear is a flawed idea, sometimes you need to compromise protection for comfort and vice versa. For example riding to work in city traffic and all weathers I'll go with my waterproof textiles cause if I do come off and barring a freak accident where they're ripped off my hands, I know they'll probably do the job and keep me warm and dry. Hooning around the countryside I'm going to go for leathers as the risk of me coming off at speed is increased and therefore makes the protection benefit a bigger factor. My argument is that the figures, as originally presented, didn't let you form these kind of conclusions. Agree to disagree?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2012 11:10
|
|
|
The best gear is the gear you'll wear. I ATGMTT; sometimes I get lazy or compromise to squid it up for short trips so some less restrictive/hot gear to fill in that area would be nice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2012 11:28
|
|
|
Okay I think it's only fair that I try to end the derail I started with yet more stupid poo poo I've heard. "My back tyre's squared off so I'm gonna try and just go round a roundabout for a while to round it again" Also from the same guy: "All engines regardless of size get the same fuel consumption if you travel at the same speed, assuming the bikes have the same weight and drag, because it takes the same amount of energy" He's a nice guy and not actually stupid, but really doesn't think things through properly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2012 11:53
|
|
|
Bixington posted:The best gear is the gear you'll wear. I ATGMTT; sometimes I get lazy or compromise to squid it up for short trips so some less restrictive/hot gear to fill in that area would be nice. I agree completely, I'm still ATGATT, just the gear in question is different depending on how I'm going to be riding.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2012 11:59
|
|
|
Z3n posted:You can get roadrash from your jeans rubbing on your skin due to the asphalt rubbing on your jeans, even if they don't rip.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2012 13:42
|
|
|
 I would wear this helmet everyday.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2012 23:15
|
|
|
Tamir Lenk posted:
Does the visor open?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 03:05
|
|
|
Reading the last few pages is hilarious   With that being said, ATGATT or I won't talk to you. GI Joe jobs fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Jul 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 03:14
|
|
|
Gullous posted:Reading the last few pages is hilarious Is that chick crazy? It's raining with no gear except for a helmet. What a nut!
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 04:59
|
|
|
Wouldn't want to get your gear wet, duh. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 05:01
|
|
|
Now where did I put my kevlar speedo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 05:49
|
|
|
She's just following the universal law of female video game protagonists: less armor, more armor
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 06:09
|
|
|
If you go fast enough and it's wet, you'll hydroplane when you layer dan.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 20:39
|
|
|
I just witnessed a squid Layer Dan not an hour ago while I was walking to work here in Philadelphia. Exhilarating. Dude's wearing the squid uniform: shorts, t-shirt, tennis shoes and a backwards hat, with his helmet secured to the rear peg on the left side. I'm guessing he was trying to impress high school girls or something, because I can hear that fart-cannon revving from a block away. Sure enough, dude takes off like a bat out of hell when it turns green. Simultaneously, some lady was trying to pull out of her parking spot. This section of the street has herringbone parking. I think the lady just casually glanced over her shoulder and pulled out, not expecting some squid to be bombing down the street at top speed and also because Philadelphia drivers are the worst. As she pulled out, he flinched, locked the rear wheel and laid it down. Thee's this huge racket as the bike slid down the street, dude tumbled, and this poor woman leaned on the horn, convinced she killed this man. I'm pretty sure the bike flipped sides a few times as it slid 30 feet or so, both fairings were scratched to hell (though that could have been from other similar accidents). Anyway, the dude gets up immediately and sheepishly waves the woman off saying he's fine, like he stumbled going up the stairs. He then picks up the bike, starts it up, and tears rear end down the street, running a goddamn red light in the process. Squids.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 00:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 14:09 |
|
|
Hahaha oh man I wish I could see something like that. The fact that he just got up zoomed away is hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 00:45
|
|
