How do cars fare in crash tests they're not specifically optimized for? (2020)

Re:How do cars fare in crash tests they're not specifically ... by jeffbee on Thursday November 11, 2021 @05:11PM (#29193876)

This is one of those feral motorcyclist myths (another one is "loud pipes save lives"). It's just a weird meme that there's some critical point at which it is optimal to throw your bike down and leap clear. That's nonsense. It's always optimal to stay on the bike and brake as hard as possible up to the moment of impact. Always. The energy necessary to get the bike into an intentional low-side dismount so you can jump clear is always better spent dumping kinetic energy into the brakes, with the bike fully upright and the front wheel fully loaded.

Another completely insane motorcyclist meme is if you are inevitably going to strike an animal in the road, it's better to hit it in a wheelie, that is, with the front wheel raised off the ground. Again: insane.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How do cars fare in crash tests they're not specifically ... by orangepurple on Thursday November 11, 2021 @05:30PM (#29194104)

When you jump off the bike you lose kinetic energy over a larger distance than in a vehicle impact due to skidding over tarmac

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How do cars fare in crash tests they're not specifically ... by jeffbee on Thursday November 11, 2021 @05:40PM (#29194191)

You don't personally have the strength to significantly change your vector. If you try to jump off the bike you are going to end up hitting whatever you were going to hit anyway. You may have an instantaneous power of perhaps 1-2 horsepower if you are superbly fit and are for some reason braced for action. The brakes on your motorcycle can decelerate you as much as 1g in dry weather. It's better to stay on.

[ Parent | on HN ]