🚀 go-pugleaf

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?  And from what
> speeds to what speeds?  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.
>
> email address can be found at:
> http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Prairie/6123/

Had the group not deteriorated so, I would find it hard to believe that someone
as educated in accident investigation and reconstruction as you obviously are,
would be challenged outside of a courtroom.

I have been checking out a lot of what you said, but some I knew already.  I have
read a couple of books on the subject because I find is fascinating.  So far, I
have yet to find a point to challenge you.  `Course, I'm not a 9th grade physics
student.  That was many years ago, and I got the funcional equivalent of a 4.0.

M