AJ Cat's "160 foot" Video

689
Posts
842
Joined
12/10/2010
Location
AU
5/21/2022 2:12am
This is what 160' looks like (assuming I'm looking at the right part, never been there). Seems about right to me. [img]https://p.vitalmx.com/photos/forums/2022/05/20/551424/s1200_Screen_Shot_2022_05_20_at_6.04.23_PM.jpg[/img]
This is what 160' looks like (assuming I'm looking at the right part, never been there). Seems about right to me.


Hate to plays devils advocate as I would have thought it was considerably less if you didn't post that. Measurement does looks generous to me.

1) He takes off closer to the right
2) Lip where he leaves the ground is behind the flag point
3) looks like he lands before that access track.
1
5/21/2022 2:36am
Impressive jump by all means, but 160? Not sure about that. But none the less impressive. But it has nothing on what that Kendall kid was doing. He was legit doubling something no one else has, AJ was just launching it down a ski jump with way less consequences.
2
kNewc
Posts
1169
Joined
3/17/2017
Location
IN US
5/21/2022 5:05am
kNewc wrote:
Ok guys we can maths. There's online calculators we can use. Here's my theory. He launches the bike at .25 seconds in the video and lands...
Ok guys we can maths. There's online calculators we can use. Here's my theory.

He launches the bike at .25 seconds in the video and lands at .27 seconds. Same at about .36-.38 in the video.

IF he was going 45MPH and had an air time of 2 seconds he went about 120ft if leaving the ground at a 25 degree angle.

IF he was going 50mph with 2 seconds of air time at a 25 degree launch that's about 133ft. 20 degree launch would be 137 feet.

Now that's super rough guestimate of "2" seconds. I'm not there with a stop watch and the video doesn't do milliseconds. What about 2.4 seconds of air time (which might be right)?

50MPH at a 25 degree launch angle with 2.4 seconds of air time would be.....159.5 feet.
PFitzG38 wrote:
Oh jesus. Here we go, hope your being sarcastic
So...you don't believe in math? Ya know, the old "distance = rate x time"? I'm not sarcastic that's what the numbers say...
2
2
5/21/2022 5:22am
If he used a tape in a straight level line it might be shorter, but he’s changing elevation which lengthens his estimate using strides.
2
1

The Shop

Darrin Willis
Posts
1105
Joined
11/16/2020
Location
Red Deer County, AB CA
5/21/2022 5:23am
At wild rose in Calgary there is a table called the 110. I paced it off at 70'
LungButter
Posts
8684
Joined
1/9/2016
Location
Yellow Pine, ID US
5/21/2022 8:24am
5/21/2022 10:38pm
The biggest surprise of that video was watching AJ struggle to count in 3’s..
13
Ryan625
Posts
1689
Joined
9/14/2019
Location
Lynnwood, WA US
5/22/2022 4:18pm
At wild rose in Calgary there is a table called the 110. I paced it off at 70'
maybe someone hit it on a 110
3
nskerb
Posts
537
Joined
11/21/2019
Location
Kelso, WA US
5/22/2022 6:37pm
Falcon wrote:
At 0:40 he starts marking it off using paces; no measuring tape involved. That's all I need to see.
I took (was forced to take) a survey class in college. We did an entire 3 hour lab dedicated to figuring out your average stride distance. Both by pacing a known distance and then doing a set # of strides and measuring that. Uphill downhill and whatever else. You’d be surprised at how accurate pacing is if you know your own stride distance.

The class sucked ass in every way but that particular piece of knowledge I use on a weekly basis. I’d say it’s accurate to +/- 2’ a lot of times when I’ll check the #’s with a rag tape. Assuming the distances I’m pacing are 50-250 ish feet.

There’s a good chance he’s lying out his ass, but assuming the pace method negates the accuracy I’d say isn’t fair.
7
2
FIREfish148
Posts
5477
Joined
1/20/2009
Location
Kirkland, WA US
5/22/2022 11:22pm
Maybe one of those “film doesn’t do it justice” jumps?
1
Falcon
Posts
12191
Joined
11/16/2011
Location
Menifee, CA US
5/23/2022 8:27am
Falcon wrote:
At 0:40 he starts marking it off using paces; no measuring tape involved. That's all I need to see.
nskerb wrote:
I took (was forced to take) a survey class in college. We did an entire 3 hour lab dedicated to figuring out your average stride distance...
I took (was forced to take) a survey class in college. We did an entire 3 hour lab dedicated to figuring out your average stride distance. Both by pacing a known distance and then doing a set # of strides and measuring that. Uphill downhill and whatever else. You’d be surprised at how accurate pacing is if you know your own stride distance.

The class sucked ass in every way but that particular piece of knowledge I use on a weekly basis. I’d say it’s accurate to +/- 2’ a lot of times when I’ll check the #’s with a rag tape. Assuming the distances I’m pacing are 50-250 ish feet.

There’s a good chance he’s lying out his ass, but assuming the pace method negates the accuracy I’d say isn’t fair.
I don't think he's lying; I just think he's counting all his steps, which would necessarily count a lot of extraneous elevation change in addition to the distance between the lip and the landing.
Also, I'm sure you can be pretty accurate in terms of paces, just not perfect. Over the course of 160 feet, there is some significant margin of error.
1
5/23/2022 8:47am
Falcon wrote:
At 0:40 he starts marking it off using paces; no measuring tape involved. That's all I need to see.
nskerb wrote:
I took (was forced to take) a survey class in college. We did an entire 3 hour lab dedicated to figuring out your average stride distance...
I took (was forced to take) a survey class in college. We did an entire 3 hour lab dedicated to figuring out your average stride distance. Both by pacing a known distance and then doing a set # of strides and measuring that. Uphill downhill and whatever else. You’d be surprised at how accurate pacing is if you know your own stride distance.

The class sucked ass in every way but that particular piece of knowledge I use on a weekly basis. I’d say it’s accurate to +/- 2’ a lot of times when I’ll check the #’s with a rag tape. Assuming the distances I’m pacing are 50-250 ish feet.

There’s a good chance he’s lying out his ass, but assuming the pace method negates the accuracy I’d say isn’t fair.
Yeah and don’t forget about the magnetic north changing 8 degrees in a year. Survey a field 6 months later and your 4 degrees off.
USA
Posts
2536
Joined
9/4/2016
Location
Richmond, TX US
Fantasy
5/23/2022 11:42am
Falcon wrote:
At 0:40 he starts marking it off using paces; no measuring tape involved. That's all I need to see.
nskerb wrote:
I took (was forced to take) a survey class in college. We did an entire 3 hour lab dedicated to figuring out your average stride distance...
I took (was forced to take) a survey class in college. We did an entire 3 hour lab dedicated to figuring out your average stride distance. Both by pacing a known distance and then doing a set # of strides and measuring that. Uphill downhill and whatever else. You’d be surprised at how accurate pacing is if you know your own stride distance.

The class sucked ass in every way but that particular piece of knowledge I use on a weekly basis. I’d say it’s accurate to +/- 2’ a lot of times when I’ll check the #’s with a rag tape. Assuming the distances I’m pacing are 50-250 ish feet.

There’s a good chance he’s lying out his ass, but assuming the pace method negates the accuracy I’d say isn’t fair.
Falcon wrote:
I don't think he's lying; I just think he's counting all his steps, which would necessarily count a lot of extraneous elevation change in addition to...
I don't think he's lying; I just think he's counting all his steps, which would necessarily count a lot of extraneous elevation change in addition to the distance between the lip and the landing.
Also, I'm sure you can be pretty accurate in terms of paces, just not perfect. Over the course of 160 feet, there is some significant margin of error.
Getting away from the pacing, what is the problem with measuring the distance including the elevation changes? Motorcycles don't jump in a straight line from lip to lip, they jump in a parabolic shape.
5/23/2022 11:51am
The fact he hasn't posted again after saying he was going to measure it looks bad. I understand it's not priority number one for him, but he did put it out there so it's on him.
The distance is one thing, video angles can change perspective so much. Him saying he was "at least" 30 feet above the jump face and "five stories" above the ground is just laughable at this point.
1
5/23/2022 11:54am
5 stories and 30 feet above the jump face...

4
RealityCheck
Posts
198
Joined
7/1/2012
Location
Davidsonville, MD US
5/23/2022 12:27pm
This is what 160' looks like (assuming I'm looking at the right part, never been there). Seems about right to me. [img]https://p.vitalmx.com/photos/forums/2022/05/20/551424/s1200_Screen_Shot_2022_05_20_at_6.04.23_PM.jpg[/img]
This is what 160' looks like (assuming I'm looking at the right part, never been there). Seems about right to me.


You beat me to it. I've ridden Tomahawk many times and know exactly which section he's talking about. I was skeptical, but I definitely believe its in the ballpark of 160ft after I measuring it with Google maps. Not in mild wildest dreams did I ever consider jumping that entire section.
1
SEEMEFIRST
Posts
13494
Joined
8/21/2006
Location
Arlington, TX US
5/23/2022 12:36pm
Falcon wrote:
At 0:40 he starts marking it off using paces; no measuring tape involved. That's all I need to see.
nskerb wrote:
I took (was forced to take) a survey class in college. We did an entire 3 hour lab dedicated to figuring out your average stride distance...
I took (was forced to take) a survey class in college. We did an entire 3 hour lab dedicated to figuring out your average stride distance. Both by pacing a known distance and then doing a set # of strides and measuring that. Uphill downhill and whatever else. You’d be surprised at how accurate pacing is if you know your own stride distance.

The class sucked ass in every way but that particular piece of knowledge I use on a weekly basis. I’d say it’s accurate to +/- 2’ a lot of times when I’ll check the #’s with a rag tape. Assuming the distances I’m pacing are 50-250 ish feet.

There’s a good chance he’s lying out his ass, but assuming the pace method negates the accuracy I’d say isn’t fair.
Yeah and don’t forget about the magnetic north changing 8 degrees in a year. Survey a field 6 months later and your 4 degrees off.
So after 50 years, a 2 mile fence at the ranch is now 14 miles off if surveyed today?

Hmm....
1
1
Broseph
Posts
1187
Joined
4/28/2018
Location
Stevenson, WA US
5/23/2022 1:53pm
nskerb wrote:
I took (was forced to take) a survey class in college. We did an entire 3 hour lab dedicated to figuring out your average stride distance...
I took (was forced to take) a survey class in college. We did an entire 3 hour lab dedicated to figuring out your average stride distance. Both by pacing a known distance and then doing a set # of strides and measuring that. Uphill downhill and whatever else. You’d be surprised at how accurate pacing is if you know your own stride distance.

The class sucked ass in every way but that particular piece of knowledge I use on a weekly basis. I’d say it’s accurate to +/- 2’ a lot of times when I’ll check the #’s with a rag tape. Assuming the distances I’m pacing are 50-250 ish feet.

There’s a good chance he’s lying out his ass, but assuming the pace method negates the accuracy I’d say isn’t fair.
Yeah and don’t forget about the magnetic north changing 8 degrees in a year. Survey a field 6 months later and your 4 degrees off.
SEEMEFIRST wrote:
So after 50 years, a 2 mile fence at the ranch is now 14 miles off if surveyed today?

Hmm....
If the change in location of magnetic north was ignored, then yeah. Kinda.

moto67e
Posts
475
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Lakewood, CA US
5/24/2022 10:34pm
In his newest video, he measures it with a tape measure and it was 140'.
mx196
Posts
539
Joined
2/7/2011
Location
MA US
5/25/2022 2:45am Edited Date/Time 5/25/2022 2:49am
kNewc wrote:
Ok guys we can maths. There's online calculators we can use. Here's my theory. He launches the bike at .25 seconds in the video and lands...
Ok guys we can maths. There's online calculators we can use. Here's my theory.

He launches the bike at .25 seconds in the video and lands at .27 seconds. Same at about .36-.38 in the video.

IF he was going 45MPH and had an air time of 2 seconds he went about 120ft if leaving the ground at a 25 degree angle.

IF he was going 50mph with 2 seconds of air time at a 25 degree launch that's about 133ft. 20 degree launch would be 137 feet.

Now that's super rough guestimate of "2" seconds. I'm not there with a stop watch and the video doesn't do milliseconds. What about 2.4 seconds of air time (which might be right)?

50MPH at a 25 degree launch angle with 2.4 seconds of air time would be.....159.5 feet.
PFitzG38 wrote:
Oh jesus. Here we go, hope your being sarcastic
kNewc wrote:
So...you don't believe in math? Ya know, the old "distance = rate x time"? I'm not sarcastic that's what the numbers say...
I have a good feeling you’re just trolling because there’s no way you’re serious. You literally said IF and super rough GUESTIMATE and here’s my theory and I’m not there with a stop watch and youtube can’t do milliasedonds then are saying it’s facts which goes against everything you said 😂
Yet you also have no proof it’s a 25 degree pitch.

I could care less about this made up distance he jumped I just had to say your post was funny.
Falcon
Posts
12191
Joined
11/16/2011
Location
Menifee, CA US
5/25/2022 11:48am
nskerb wrote:
I took (was forced to take) a survey class in college. We did an entire 3 hour lab dedicated to figuring out your average stride distance...
I took (was forced to take) a survey class in college. We did an entire 3 hour lab dedicated to figuring out your average stride distance. Both by pacing a known distance and then doing a set # of strides and measuring that. Uphill downhill and whatever else. You’d be surprised at how accurate pacing is if you know your own stride distance.

The class sucked ass in every way but that particular piece of knowledge I use on a weekly basis. I’d say it’s accurate to +/- 2’ a lot of times when I’ll check the #’s with a rag tape. Assuming the distances I’m pacing are 50-250 ish feet.

There’s a good chance he’s lying out his ass, but assuming the pace method negates the accuracy I’d say isn’t fair.
Falcon wrote:
I don't think he's lying; I just think he's counting all his steps, which would necessarily count a lot of extraneous elevation change in addition to...
I don't think he's lying; I just think he's counting all his steps, which would necessarily count a lot of extraneous elevation change in addition to the distance between the lip and the landing.
Also, I'm sure you can be pretty accurate in terms of paces, just not perfect. Over the course of 160 feet, there is some significant margin of error.
USA wrote:
Getting away from the pacing, what is the problem with measuring the distance including the elevation changes? Motorcycles don't jump in a straight line from lip...
Getting away from the pacing, what is the problem with measuring the distance including the elevation changes? Motorcycles don't jump in a straight line from lip to lip, they jump in a parabolic shape.
Because tip to tip is the only distance you can measure which remains the same between two obstacles. Hear me out:


One set of doubles on one part of the track could be exactly the same as another in terms of jumping it; same gear, same RPMs, same distance from takeoff to landing. To some extent, you can change the height at which you jump those obstacles, and thus change the total length of your bike's trajectory. The distance between the jumps remains the same, however, regardless of how high you boost it or how low you scrub it. Measuring the flight path is harder and also less consistent than measuring the gap.
Now apply the same logic to the low spot between the doubles. Is it almost flat, like a tabletop? Or deep, like a trench between? It makes absolutely no difference to you or your motorcycle if you are jumping it, but will measure very differently if walked off.
If we want a consistent measurement of the distance of jumps, it is takeoff to landing, in a straight line.

6/10/2023 7:00pm
Is our buddy in some internet trouble again, or is it just weird angles? Definitely doesn't look like anywhere close to 160' to me, and the...
Is our buddy in some internet trouble again, or is it just weird angles? Definitely doesn't look like anywhere close to 160' to me, and the comments section seems to agree.
Wondering what Vital has to say. Not hating on AJ, he puts out some good content....this one just seemed odd to me.

I don't care what you have to say, just the fact you think your point is special enough to warrant ANOTHER effing thread. Good for you. 

4
6/10/2023 7:01pm
Is our buddy in some internet trouble again, or is it just weird angles? Definitely doesn't look like anywhere close to 160' to me, and the...
Is our buddy in some internet trouble again, or is it just weird angles? Definitely doesn't look like anywhere close to 160' to me, and the comments section seems to agree.
Wondering what Vital has to say. Not hating on AJ, he puts out some good content....this one just seemed odd to me.

You are a Flopper Woohoo

2
6/10/2023 9:38pm

Hello, VitalMX user. 
You’re probably asking yourself, “why is this thread getting bumped?” Well, user Batesy here started a Deegan thread and Nathaniel, the creator of this thread, responded with “I don't care what you have to say, just the fact you think your point is special enough to warrant ANOTHER effing thread. Good for you.” 
 

Batesy didn’t like this, and responded saying he was happy to get under Nathaniel’s skin. However, Batesy then decided to pull up Nathaniel‘s thread history to post a copypasta of Nate’s sharp response, showing that it was in fact Nathaniel who got under Batesy’s skin. 
 

Stay with us as this fascinating story develops. 

6
aeffertz
Posts
12378
Joined
7/16/2015
Location
La Crosse, WI US
6/10/2023 9:50pm Edited Date/Time 6/10/2023 9:52pm

Still one of my favorite things to reference when someone talks about how big a jump is, even if it is a deep cut in Vital lore. Grinning

Post a reply to: AJ Cat's "160 foot" Video

The Latest