🚀 go-pugleaf

"Mark B." <spam_*this*_@see.my.sig> wrote:

>Read this carefully Earl:   A *rolling* CoF of 1.0 is *NORMAL*!
>                            A *rolling* CoF of 1.0 is *TYPICAL*!
>                            A *rolling* CoF of 1.0 is *EXPECTED*!

I read it.  Now from which forensic publication did you find this
little jewel?

>Tough brake (yuk, yuk), Earl, but there's ABSOLUTELY NO WAY you
>could have measured 0.7-0.8 typical CoFs on an ABS-equipped car.

Sure I have, but don't let that stop you from having another temper
tantrum when you verify it.  If you had any understanding of the topic
you'd have also included the speeds at which the tests were run.  An
oversight?  Nahhh..... just further proof you haven't a clue what's
going on here.  Even a novice investigator knows the CoF is very speed
dependant. 

>Yes Earl, Northwestern U. *does* list them as "typicals" -- but
>they're *SLIDING* CoF, and you *CANNOT* measure a sliding CoF on
>ABS-controlled stops.

I've NEVER said I measured sliding CoF on an ABS test.  I wrote I
measured the CoF, period.  And the chart is:
"Coefficients of Friction of Various Roadway Surfaces" copyright 1990.
Sounds to me like you're looking at something else.

And rather than waste my time writing an hour long response to your
little tirade may I suggest you actually read some of the
investigation/recon books.   It's very clear to me you don't
understand the subject as it pertains to accident investigation.  The
data you've presented is useless.

>With ABS, you get *rolling* CoF -- which
>is virtually *NEVER* as low as 0.80 on *ANY* dry road surface!

Never say never in this business for surely someone will prove you
wrong.   Have a nice day.


email address can be found at:
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Prairie/6123/