🚀 go-pugleaf

Mike Sweeney wrote:

> Coefficient of friction is the ratio of the force necessary to slide
> an object at uniform speed on a particular surface to the pressure of
> the object against that surface.  --Traffic Accident Investigators
> Manual for Police, Northwestern University Traffic Institute.

Nice try, Mike.  Too bad it's wrong.  399.99% DEAD FUCKING WRONG!

1. Coefficient of friction is a ratio of *forces*;  it is NOT a
   ratio of force to pressure.  (You can check that in any basic
   physics or mechanical engineering text / reference manual.)

2. Pressure is *NOT* force.  You CANNOT bench-press 150 psi.

3. Force is *NOT* pressure.  You CANNOT inflate your tires with
   a 30 lb weight (not even if you're a NW.U-certified dumbell.)

4. Even ignoring the pressure stupidity, the definition applies
   ONLY to the (increasingly rare) situation where the tires are
   skidding along the road in a locked-up stop -- although this
   situation is *IMPOSSIBLE* to achieve with *most* of the cars
   being sold today.  Thus, sliding c.o.f. is ALWAYS_DEAD_WRONG
   with *MOST* new cars, and MOSTLY_DEAD_WRONG with *ALL* others.

It would make more sense to publish the sliding c.o.f. of glass --
at least a car *MIGHT* overturn and skid to a stop on its sunroof.

The dean and faculty of Northwestern U's Traffic Institute (along
with all their friends, blood relatives, and casual acquaintences)
should be skinned alive, tarred and feathered, burned at the stake,
fed to the lions -- and *then* summarily executed (or condemned to
drive forever behind a 55mph LLB -- with no possibility of parole.)


> Drag Factor -- the amount of drag that a surface puts on a tire
> (tires) on a wheel compared to the weight on that wheel.

A truly *pathetic* statement, obviously written by an illiterate,
innumerate TURBO-moron who wouldn't recognize a clear definition
(or an English sentence) if it bit him in the ass.

If you disagree, I *dare* you to explain the difference between
"drag factor" and c.o.f -- based *ONLY* on the text of the above
Traffic Institute scatoglyphs. 


> ABS lets the brakes lock, then immediately releases them for a 
> fraction of a second, then begins to lock them again.  For this
> reason, most ABS vehicles, under pedal-to-the-floor braking can
> be heard to squeal almost as loud as regular vehicles,

Applying for a position on the Traffic Institute faculty, Mike?
Your English prose needs some work -- it's far too clear -- but
your technical accuracy is *easily* down to their standards.

Please treat us to a (partial) list of those "most ABS vehicles"
you've driven in the last 5-10 years.  I found your description
kinda surprising -- because *none* of the ABS-equipped cars I've
tried (so far) could even remotely imitate the locked-wheel skid
of a "regular vehicle".  Of course, you're much more experienced
with ABS than I am -- seein' as how you're intimately familiar
with "most ABS vehicles". 

I've only had ABS on my daily-driver for 10 years/350,000 miles,
so I haven't driven anything even close to "most ABS vehicles".
Including rentals in the USA and Europe, I prolly haven't tried
more than 30-40 different ABS-equipped models.  OTOH, it *does*
seem kinda strange that *none* of my 30-40 samples even remotely
resembled *most* of the *thousands* that you've tested.

> and will often leave light skidmarks.  Since this is possible,
> the difference between that and a vehicle without ABS is less
> than you might think. 

Attaboy, Mike!  *NOW* you're gettin' the hang of it -- you've
succeeded in bringing the fog-factor up to Traffic Institute
levels.  Even with RADAR, nobody will crack through the smoke
screen obscuring the target of that "Since this is possible"
reference.                                 ^^^^

BTW, it's really comforting to have you figurin' out 'zactly
what it is that I *might* think,    ...fuck you very much.
                 

> Also you would have to understand that large variances in skid
> resistance (drag factor) are equal to much smaller variances in
> speed.

Well said, Mike -- but you left out one minor detail.  Before
anyone can hope to grock The Sweeney Effect, they really should
plan on a full frontal lobotomy followed by complete amputation
of all fingers and toes.  It's nearly impossible for folks who
can think (or count past one) to grasp your brilliant theorem:
"larger variances ARE EQUAL TO much smaller variances"   Bravo!


> Beginning to understand why this is usually doled out in a
> series of classes?  (all of which EF has probably taken)

Yep.  That's easily $100,000 worth of education -- but it's broken up
into managable chunks.  They shove it up your ass a nickel at a time.

...I'm sure you'll enjoy it,

Mark B.
-- 
  ------------------------------------------------------------------
 |  brindle   |  "The discipline of the written word punishes both  |
 |     @      |   stupidity and dishonesty."                        |
 | chesco.com |                                  -John Steinbeck    |
  ------------------------------------------------------------------