Car vs. Guzzi

[Guest ratchethack]

OK, here's the scenario. You're Guzzi-ing along in moderately heavy freeway traffic at 80mph. Without warning and unbeknownst to you, a funky green Barcalounger bounces out of the back of a pickup in front of the car in front of you (got that?). The car in front of you manages to change lanes to avoid it entirely, giving you a precious few white-knuckle, arrested-respiration, eyes-big-as-saucers seconds between the time you first see what's coming toward you, and when you do whatever you're gonna do to try to avoid a trip to the local emergency room.

 

THE ARGUMENT:

 

I maintain that a Guzzi needs a greater following distance to avoid an impact here than a car does, since the rider has to first crank in countersteer to establish a lean angle before a change of direction can begin. The driver of a car, on the other hand, simply cranks the wheel, and he's in the next lane.

 

Now my riding Pal LeMans Dan maintains that the lower mass of the Guzzi provides a larger window of opportunity to change direction and get out of the zone of impact. Further, he maintains that since the Guzzi provides a smaller target for the Barca, this means that as a general rule, the Guzzi needs the same or less following distance than the car requires to avoid the mob of doctors and lawyers it usually requires to wrap up this kind of adventure.

 

We'll assume equal time in each case for checking adjacent lanes, that the adjacent lanes are clear, that we're comparing the Guzzi against a reasonably well-handling mid-size sedan, and that both rider and driver are both attentive and have equal, reasonably good reflexes. Oh - assume you, the Guzzi rider, have no advantage over the car in being able to see over the car in front of you to get a preview of what's happening. Let's say the car that got out of the way is a huge SUV.

 

We're not dickering about which vehicle you'd rather be piloting in case of an assumed impact (that's understood), and let's leave braking distances out of the argument. Assume we don't have time to think about hitting the binders.

 

So in this case, which needs a longer following distance to avoid impact with the sudden obstacle - the Guzzi or the sedan?

 

Your input is appreciated!

 

Ratchethack

[Guest Nogbad]

I think the bike should get out of the way quicker. Lower inertia, and importantly it needs to cover less lateral distance to avoid the whatever it is you say fell of the truck. However, there probably wouldn't be a lot in it in practice!

[dlaing]

I think the Guzzi is less likely to hit the furniture because it is a smaller target.

But if the question is, who can maneuver over 2 meters more quickly, I would say the my Toyota Matrix would have a slight advantage, unless I was tuning the radio or drinking coffee.

But my old 76 Mercedes would be eating sofa.

So it does depend on the car.

Likewise, if our bikes lost 50lbs they would move quicker.

Or if I was realllllly prepared, I might be able to make the bike move over quicker.

It is probably something I should practice...

I generally use the same following distance whether on car or bike, 2 seconds.

[Guest Nogbad]

I agree. 2 seconds is a good rule. You can't have too much room to take avoiding action!

[Baldini]

If I can't see ahead of the vehicle in front I leave more of a gap anyhow cos you can't anticipate so much. Seems to me a lot of drivers drive on the brake lights of the vehicle in front...with not a clue what's in store further down the road.

 

But I dunno the answer...I'd say there's too many variables to be definitive. The stuff you're talking about countersteering/lean n'all - is done instantly almost as one action anyhow - it's just "steering" - it takes a wheel to turn the wheel in a car, then correct for the oversteer, then correct again & again....then you hit something you'd not noticed before...my riding's better than my driving...my guess is the bike stands a better chance of missing it cos of it's size & manouverability - but if it hits anything it'll hurt more - so for that alone I'd keep out the way.

 

KB

[TX REDNECK (R.I.P.)]

And what if Napoleon had a B52 at the battle of Waterloo , would it have made a difference ?

[helicopterjim R.I.P.]

And what if Napoleon had a B52 at the battle of Waterloo , would it have made a difference ?

44999[/snapback]

He probably had a few cognacs but I don't know if Bailey's or Kahlua was invented back then.

[dbdicker]

hmmm, just from a personal POV, I think I'd be much less likely to hit the sofa in the car, all other things being equal. I'd be more apt to give the correct, radical input to the vehicle in the car. On the bike, I'd be scared to yank the bike over for fear of lowside, afraid of what was in the next lane over, etc...... In the car, I'd just instinctively yank on the wheel and take my lumps.

 

That's just me, however.

 

Dan

[dlaing]

I'd be scared to yank the bike over for fear of lowside, afraid of what was in the next lane over, etc...... 

45012[/snapback]

Another point is that my car's mirrors are much better, and I am frequently scanning what is beside and coming up behind me.

On the bike the Napoleon's comparatively suck. But speaking of Napoleon, perhaps if I drinking cognac, I would fearlessly countersteer into the next lane and avoid my waterloo!

I have seriously considered truck mirrors. But I am afraid of what everone would think of me Oh F@CK That, I should just get some truck mirrors. Not the big long ones, but the panel van size.

Who knows, they may even suck the last few vibes out of the bars.

[dbdicker]

Another point is that my car's mirrors are much better, and I am frequently scanning what is beside and coming up behind me.

On the bike the Napoleon's comparatively suck. But speaking of Napoleon, perhaps if I drinking cognac, I would fearlessly countersteer into the next lane and avoid my waterloo!

I have seriously considered truck mirrors. But I am afraid of what everone would think of me   Oh F@CK That, I should just get some truck mirrors. Not the big long ones, but the panel van size.

Who knows, they may even suck the last few vibes out of the bars.

45015[/snapback]

 

 

I'm with ya. the first guy that markets a real live good looking and FUNCTIONAL set of mirrors for any of these sportbikes has got my money, no matter what the cost. Looking good is fine, seeing good is better

 

Dan

[helicopterjim R.I.P.]

But to get back to the original question - how would a good set of mirrors help you to avoid the piece of furniture? I say just pull a wheelie and use the sofa as a launch pad to put you in the back of the pickup truck, then calmly put the sidestand down, get off the bike and use the tire iron lying in the back of the truck to beat the driver senseless. The truck will obviously crash at this point but you will die feeling much better!

[bento]

if it's something in front of me, the first thing i'm doing is clutch and breaks. if i'm stopped and see something comming up behind me to fast? i think i'd make the jump for freedom, then assult the driver with my helmet.

[DeBenGuzzi]

tuck and roll baby, I'm always making sure I'm not driving next to a car at least on one side of me so I have a decent escape route I know I can't follow that at rush hour but thats not the same. give good distance and a way out I've had a scare or two from not following my own advice I was sliding sideways on the freeway because traffic stopped and the nice morning dew (it was 5:30am) made it just slick enough for me to not stop that I hammered on the brakes started sliding sideways (leterally) and came to a stop within a foot of the cars arse. So to reiterate, 2sec distance at least, leave yourself an escape route at all times better to ride safe in bad traffic than have a bad accident in "safe" traffic.

[Steve S.]

Great Question!

Of course the best defense in this case is a good offense. If you've kept tabs on all traffic around you, and if you've already got escape options cleared you won't have to waste precious time making sure you don't crash into something else while avoiding the comfy-chair, a much more serious situation on a bike than in a car.

 

But the original question was about the dynamics of quick maneuvers on two wheels versus four.

 

A car turns by simply steering it's wheels to a new direction, but it can't fully use that force until the suspension is fully compressed on the outside, and extended on the inside. The tires also take some time for the sidewalls to deflect. A nice smooth-riding Lincoln or Mercedes is at a disadvantage here, a lightweight stiffly-suspended car like an open-wheeled race car can turn so fast it'll startle you.

 

A motorcycle turns by camber thrust. It must first be leaned (by countersteering of course) before it can turn. Suspension stiffness matters less on a bike; what really makes a quick transisioning bike is front-end geometry and mass-centralization, and both of those are compromised for straight-line stability. But a bike won't have to move as far to avoid a collision 'cause it's skinnier.

 

I guess if I had the choice of two wheels or four in any potential collision, I'd take the four-wheeler just because there's less risk of injury to me. If I knew I was going to crash I'd never take the bike.