🚀 go-pugleaf

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

> >Earl, face the facts -- your one-size-fits-all c.o.f. model is
> >*PURE BULLSHIT*.

> You really don't understand the problem do you?  The c.o.f. is a
> variable determined from testing based on the vehicle and surface in
> question and for some mysterious reason our tests out in the real
> world rarely ever approach the 1g idealistic data published in a
> magazine.

OK, Earl, then riddle me this:

 1) If c.o.f. is a VARIABLE dependent on the vehicle AND the surface,
    WHAT GOOD is it?  In order to find c.o.f.(vehicle, surface), you'd
    have to measure braking distance for an *identical* vehicle on an
    *identical* surface.  Given the distance, you can calculate c.o.f.,
    which allows you to "predict" distance.  ...gosh, Earl, you could
    then use the predicted distance to calculate c.o.f.   ...and use
    that to predict distance  ...from which you could determine c.o.f.
    
 2) If c.o.f. is a VARIABLE dependent on the vehicle AND the surface,
    HOW did you conclude the *measurements* Dan provided were wrong?

 3) If c.o.f. is a VARIABLE dependent on the vehicle AND the surface,
    from *WHAT* orifice did you pull the CONSTANT value (i.e., 0.75)
    that you used in your "more precise" calculations? 


> I have to able to back up the data I use in a court of law.
> Any half-assed attorney would have your stuff tossed out in no time.

Any half-numerate judge or attorney would toss your pseudo-scientific
technobabble mumbo-jumbo out of court in about 1.6 seconds.  How on
earth can you "back up the data" in court when you obviously don't
have a clue regarding the underlying 9th grade physics?  (Lucky for
you, numeracy is a *very* scarce commodity in the legal profession.)


> > I've seen the term "scuff marks" (rather than
> >"skid marks") used in conjunction with ABS footprints
 
> Essentially the same thing.  They are measured the same way.

Yes, Earl, they're both *measured* with a tape measure.  (Duh!)
OTOH, what you *DO* with the measurements is entirely different
(or at least it should be).

If you apply your (variable-constant) c.o.f. of 0.75 to scuff
marks from an ABS-equipped car that was actually going 80mph
(on good tires) your speed calculation will be 20mph too low.
Maybe *that's* why defense attorneys don't dispute your "data".


> Of course not.  It's much easier to keep on speeding and worry about
> a ticket.

Wrong again, Earl.  It's easiest to *not* worry about tickets and just
drive *AS IF* traffic enforcement were sane/just/reasonable.  When the
occasional "travel tax" comes due, I don't worry about that either --
but I fight it to limit (including appeals).  So far, (35+ years and
over 1,000,000 miles of accident-free driving), I'm batting WELL over
.500 with the magistrates (thanks in no small part to LEO technobabble
such as you've been spewing here).

...live free or die,

Mark B.
-- 
  -------------------------------------------------------------------
 |            |   I would advise you Sir, to study algebra, if you   |
 |  brindle   |   are not already an adept in it:  your head would   |
 |     @      |   be less muddy, and you will leave off tormenting   |
 | chesco.com |   your neighbours about paper and packthread...      |
 |            |                                   -Samuel Johnson    |
  --------------------------------------------------------------------