Posts
8758
Joined
3/21/2007
Location
HAIKU, HI, USA
Edited Date/Time
2/21/2016 8:39pm
It's a close call but I think I have been injured worse with lower speed crashes. My theory is low speed is generally WHAM and your stuffed into the terra firma like a lawn dart whereas higher speed crashes provide the opportunity to scrub off some speed with the tumbling that usually accompanies higher speed get offs.
What do you think?
What do you think?
You can get hurt going down at any speed , but generally the high speed get offs are what destroys a guy. Slow speed you can snap something.....high speed , you can snap multiple things. My worst one's were always high speed.
The Shop
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
For sure there is no one size fits all rule here just curious what other people have experienced.
KMC440-good point
Given what I know of kinematics of trauma and how they relate to injuries, I'll take my chances with low speed over high speed any day.
High speed= tumble/roll
But yeah I have seen a lot of these simple tip over resulting in an broken wrist/arm
To your point Jimmy Button was probably going the lowest speed they went on the course but landed the wrong way.
Probably six a one half a dozen of the other but I'm not a fan of low speed lawn dart crashes. I had one last month that left me with four broken ribs and a concussion. It was actually probably a little more medium speed but for sure it was a WHAM and lights out for a moment. I was either knocked out or my DVR was knocked offline as I have no recollection of a minute or so. I still was extremely lucky to walk away since the bike landed on me.
It can always be worse.
marx41: ragdoll > lawn dart where > equals better
Pit Row
You dont go as fast near obstacles that create a more perpendicular collision path. You are usually going mach speed in a section with smoother obstacles, or no obstacles, so that when you crash, the deceleration is not as great due to the angle of incidence when you hit. You bounce and tumble. I would rather glance off a face at 10 degrees going 40 mph than hit a face at 75 degrees going 18 mph. But hit at a 75 degree angle at 40 mph...?
40*sin(10 degrees) = 7.9 mph (like hitting a wall at 90 degrees at 7.9 mph)
18*sin(75 degrees) = 17.3 mph (like hitting a wall at 90 degrees at 17.3 mph)
Now, if you hit at a 75 degree angle going 40 mph...you are probably dead.
You do not roll because of the speed, you roll because the angle of impact allows you to roll. You are comparing apples and oranges and making stupid conclusions. More speed always means a great potential for rapid deceleration, which equals trauma. Look at road riders when they hit cars, curbs and walls. They die.
I honestly feel that to many riders tense up and try to break there fall instead of relaxing and going with the flow. Another factor is the riders bone density Mine is currently 3X higher than the density of a typical 21 year old bone density I am currently 52 and had it tested 5 months ago.
Post a reply to: High speed better than low speed crash?