🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <35a323de.54283262@news.okc.oklahoma.net>,
   in@the.sig (E. Faubion) wrote:
>Dennis.Jensen@dwt.csiro.au (Dennis Jensen) wrote:
>
>>Can't find the original post, so I thought I would reply to this instead. 
>>Earl, it appears that you think that there is something magic about a CoF of 
>>1.0, and that it is not possible to have a greater CoF.
>
>Read Dennis, read.  For the 3rd time, 1.0 is not impossible, but it IS
>rare.  Do some testing on traveled roadways with a variety of cars and
>you'd discover this and this silly discussion will end.
>
>>Rubber on concrete           1.02
>
>(snip)
>
>What kind of concrete?  New, sharp, polished, what?  

Clean concrete.

>And from what
>speeds to what speeds?  

If you had read what I posted, you would see that it was at a constant 
velocity of 100mm/min.

>Come into court with nothing more than this
>and even a law school undergraduate will eat your lunch and send you
>packing.  As presented this data is worthless.  
>
>Dig up Northwestern University's 1990 drag factor chart sometime.
>It's been widely accepted in many courts as a reputable guide.  
>

Do you have a webpage for it. Being in Australia, it is a little difficult to 
dig up.. However, remeber that that 1.02 rating is kinetic friction, not 
static. Static friction would be even higher.

Dennis