(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3213/2530926468_1e3fc12b1e_o.jpg)
I wonder how fast you need to be going past it to avoid getting hit [moto]
Agility is the name of the game......
Oh and the plus side of 180k's I think is what Top Gear found out.
youll need to going farster than 3000 feet per second [laugh]
Quote from: mattyvas on May 28, 2008, 03:39:20 AM
Agility is the name of the game......
Oh and the plus side of 180k's I think is what Top Gear found out.
Actually it was 173 mph = 277km/hr
3000 ft/sec = 180,000 ft/min = 10,800,000 ft/hr = 2,045 mph = 3,272 km/hr.......
Sorry forgot about the dual measurement system in the UK.
Quote from: Big T on May 28, 2008, 03:59:01 AM
Actually it was 173 mph = 277km/hr
3000 ft/sec = 180,000 ft/min = 10,800,000 ft/hr = 2,045 mph = 3,272 km/hr.......
Should be able to do that on the desmo [moto] [evil]
By all means you will.
You;ll just have to able to hold on though..... [cheeky] [cheeky] [cheeky]
Quote from: Big T on May 28, 2008, 03:59:01 AM
Actually it was 173 mph = 277km/hr
3000 ft/sec = 180,000 ft/min = 10,800,000 ft/hr = 2,045 mph = 3,272 km/hr.......
No probs, should be able to do that ....(falling off a cliff)
Mmick
chute optional......
Cause it's only gonna slow down terminal velocity.
Quote from: Big T on May 28, 2008, 03:59:01 AM
Actually it was 173 mph = 277km/hr
3000 ft/sec = 180,000 ft/min = 10,800,000 ft/hr = 2,045 mph = 3,272 km/hr.......
By my "rough" calculation....
At 140km/hr using 11 litres of fuel = 0.0786 litres/km
3,272km/hr using 6,010 litres of fuel = 1.837 litres/km
11 litres before the light comes on = 5.99 say 6km
3,272 km/hr = 0.909 km/second so ......
Looks like you have 6 seconds of fuel to travel 6km to beat the new speed camera...... [moto]
I am willing to risk these new speed cameras, as long as we stop paying revenue to the govt.... sorry, I mean stop paying speeding fines.
Bugger the carbon fibre, I'll start blinging my bike with Kevlar armour!! [thumbsup]
You just need to be able to duck and weave.
Duck and weave, duck and weave. ;D