[quote=mihlbach]I was a master of physices…best grade in a class of hundreds at Columbia U., one of the ten best colleges in the world…yes, the world…AKA Planet Earth.
Of course, I don’t know how I compare mentally to people on your planet.
But take if from a certified genius, you argument is too convoluted and non-tarck. Brakes slow you down. They don’t do much of anything else. Its really very simple. If you ride brakeless, you will spend about the same amount of time accelerating in the direction of travel, unless of course you accelerate at the same rate, but ride slower overall. But thats your choice, not the brakes. Furthermore you will spend less time negatively accelerating. So in total its less time accelerating. So what is your point again?[/quote]
Okay, well your problem isn’t with physics it’s with fucking common sense. You are very wrong, probably just because you’re not thinking about the problem enough. Stopping FASTER(with brakes) equals LESS time spent negatively accelerating, Jesus Christ.
Two equal riders, on two equal bikes, but one has brakes. Put them on a simple square course, where they have to slow down considerably to make right turns. They can maintain 25mph on the straightaways, but must slow to 10mph to successfully navigate the turns. If it takes brakeless guy 14 feet to decelerate to 10mph, and it takes guy with brakes 7 feet to slow down. That means he will be travelling at 25mph for an extra 7 feet, while brakeless guy is already trying to slow down. Which means guy with brakes is getting further and further ahead at every turn.
Now, in city situations it’s not that pronounced. And you’re mostly only really slowing down for stop signs/lights, where if you have to come to a complete stop and wait, it makes no difference. but still.
Okay, well your problem isn’t with physics it’s with fucking common sense. You are very wrong, probably just because you’re not thinking about the problem enough. Stopping FASTER(with brakes) equals LESS time spent negatively accelerating, Jesus Christ.
Two equal riders, on two equal bikes, but one has brakes. Put them on a simple square course, where they have to slow down considerably to make right turns. They can maintain 25mph on the straightaways, but must slow to 10mph to successfully navigate the turns. If it takes brakeless guy 14 feet to decelerate to 10mph, and it takes guy with brakes 7 feet to slow down. That means he will be travelling at 25mph for an extra 7 feet, while brakeless guy is already trying to slow down. Which means guy with brakes is getting further and further ahead at every turn.
Now, in city situations it’s not that pronounced. And you’re mostly only really slowing down for stop signs/lights, where if you have to come to a complete stop and wait, it makes no difference. but still.[/quote]
I’m still waiting for a scientifically rigorous experiment. Please submit your test plans in writing. They will be evaluated and funding will be disbursed based on merit.
All else being equal, having brakes makes one faster than not having brakes.
I don’t know mihlbach enough to know if he’s trolling, or truly thinks that somehow being able to stop faster means you’ll be spending more time slowing down… I’m so confused.
[quote=crushkilldestroy]Aren’t those like $75 apiece? Seems kind of bonkers for touring tires.
[/quote]
You can find them for less than that. But you can probably get 3 times the mileage out of them. I have a pair with 1800 miles and the tread still looks new.
