10-19-2013, 03:52 AM
(10-19-2013, 02:10 AM)bubblerboy64_imp Wrote: I guess the larger debate is whether or not the GOV should put speed limiters on vehicles.
I think sadly they should because we seem to be a nation where common sense is in short supply.
It's rather easy to conclude that YOU don't need a speed limiter on YOUR bike but do you really really want any fool who has the money to be able to buy a speed unlimited vehicle? You could debate the difference between 112 and 155 but lets just consider it to be significant. It's the difference between 0 and 43 mph and if you think of it that way it puts it into perspective.
They talk about the muscle cars of the mid to late sixties into the early seventies. We've got vehicles today which make them pail in comparison.
Clearly I fear some one needs to be in charge since good judgement is not a given.
well, the linear speed difference is one thing, but the energy difference goes as the square of the velocity (speed).. so roughly, the energy difference between a speed of 0 and 43 is 43 squared or 1844 (of whatever units)..
But the energy difference between 112 and 155 is difference between 155 squared and 112 squared or about 24025 - 12544 or 11481 that's about 9600 units MORE energy bound into the increase in speed from 112 to 155 as compared to 0 and 43..
or it's about 5 times the amount of energy increase..
so going from 112 to 155 is not at all comparable to going from 0 to 43.. there's a whole lot more 'stuffed in there'..