Who can do the math on this ? Wouter

On May 12, 10:33*am, "A. Dumas" wrote:
Anton Berlin wrote:

The reality is it doesn't help to look back. *There's no accurate
judgment one can make based on what's behind them.

I find it does help, in making the driver aware that you see him. It
humanises me to them. I feel it often makes for a slightly wider pass or
lower speed.

Of course it helps. Anton yelling at his girlfriend...eh, not so
much.

R

On May 12, 10:21*am, RicodJour wrote:
On May 12, 10:33*am, "A. Dumas" wrote:

Anton Berlin wrote:

The reality is it doesn't help to look back. *There's no accurate
judgment one can make based on what's behind them.

I find it does help, in making the driver aware that you see him. It
humanises me to them. I feel it often makes for a slightly wider pass or
lower speed.

Of course it helps. *Anton yelling at his girlfriend...eh, not so
much.

R

Anton always yelling at someone

On May 12, 9:33*am, "A. Dumas" wrote:
Anton Berlin wrote:
The reality is it doesn't help to look back. *There's no accurate
judgment one can make based on what's behind them.

I find it does help, in making the driver aware that you see him. It
humanises me to them. I feel it often makes for a slightly wider pass or
lower speed.

Looking behind, mirrors makes you guys Freds

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_%28bicycling%29

In article ,
"A. Dumas" wrote:

Anton Berlin wrote:
The reality is it doesn't help to look back. There's no accurate
judgment one can make based on what's behind them.

I find it does help, in making the driver aware that you see him. It
humanises me to them. I feel it often makes for a slightly wider pass or
lower speed.

Same for me.

--
Old Fritz

On May 10, 3:00*pm, Anton Berlin wrote:
You have a 160 lb cyclist going 35-40 mph hit his "pedal" *(toes, foot
ankle shin etc) into an immovable object (the stone wall)

In my ****ing experience something like this would have happened
before (or as a part of) *the pedal breaks off the spindle or the
spindle breaks or the crankarm breaks or the crank rips off the bottom
bracket or the bottom bracket itself breaks.

What makes more sense is that his left handlebar caught on the top of
the wall causing a violent steer to the left that then made a pivot
point of the front hub and launched him face first into the pavement.
(also notice his facial deformation after the crash.)

So the forces at play were the conversion of most of his forward mass
and speed into an arc extending 3ft ish from his front hub and into
the pavement. * *Violent indeed.

Reminds me of the spill that Bart Bell and Tom Brinker took on the
back of the tandem out in Colorado Springs in 1987ish. * I was shocked
to see them alive after that. *I can't recall who was the stoker that
night but they were slammed into the concrete in a way that give me
chills today.

PS ( I am not confusing this with the 92 Nats crash)

When falling off a bicycle at speed there are two things to consider.
The force exerted on you by vertical deceleration when you hit the
pavement. This is normally survivable because the vertical velocity
component isn't high even though the deceleration distance is small
(the road doesn't give). This is the design criteria for helmets. The
forward component is the more potentially dangerous and is again
survivable if you slide a few feet. However, hit a wall, tree or other
immovable object and the deceleration is huge and the damage
potentially much more extensive.
Phil H

On May 14, 9:43*am, Phil H wrote:
On May 10, 3:00*pm, Anton Berlin wrote:









You have a 160 lb cyclist going 35-40 mph hit his "pedal" *(toes, foot
ankle shin etc) into an immovable object (the stone wall)

In my ****ing experience something like this would have happened
before (or as a part of) *the pedal breaks off the spindle or the
spindle breaks or the crankarm breaks or the crank rips off the bottom
bracket or the bottom bracket itself breaks.

What makes more sense is that his left handlebar caught on the top of
the wall causing a violent steer to the left that then made a pivot
point of the front hub and launched him face first into the pavement.
(also notice his facial deformation after the crash.)

So the forces at play were the conversion of most of his forward mass
and speed into an arc extending 3ft ish from his front hub and into
the pavement. * *Violent indeed.

Reminds me of the spill that Bart Bell and Tom Brinker took on the
back of the tandem out in Colorado Springs in 1987ish. * I was shocked
to see them alive after that. *I can't recall who was the stoker that
night but they were slammed into the concrete in a way that give me
chills today.

PS ( I am not confusing this with the 92 Nats crash)

When falling off a bicycle at speed there are two things to consider.
The force exerted on you by vertical deceleration when you hit the
pavement. This is normally survivable because the vertical velocity
component isn't high even though the deceleration distance is small
(the road doesn't give). This is the design criteria for helmets. The
forward component is the more potentially dangerous and is again
survivable if you slide a few feet. However, hit a wall, tree or other
immovable object and the deceleration is huge and the damage
potentially much more extensive.
Phil H

I think his left bar hit first and turned the front wheel to a 45
degree angle. Once this happened the front hub became a pivot for the
energy and flipped him head first into the pavement. I've hit pedals
and legs against immovable objects - the energy remains mainly below
the center of gravity and it's easy to maintain bike control.