Remember your HS Physics?

Permanently park your rig in your driveway and the kinetic energy drops to zero....So does the fun. And if I was on the field, there would have been no way the guy would have scored three touchdowns. I brought some serious kinetic energy from the defense end.

rif7g mentioned momentum. if the vehicle stops by hitting a fixed object, the RV momentum, mass x velocity, is wiped out by the crash impulse exerted by the fixed object, force x time-to-stop.

m x v = F x t

this is hard to solve for the force of impact since the crumple time-to-stop is highly variable. this is what nhtsa crash tests help determine.

GordonThree wrote:
So the surface area and number of tires, brake pads, rotors, drums, etc play no part in your stopping distance?

That is correct.. I will explain why

The force of stopping is the weight of the vehicle (mass times gravity)

(Gravity is a constant for all vehicles) Times the coefficient of friction Thus the heavier the ride the more force stopping.

Braking power if you want to factor in area of tires in contact with road then the amount of force on each square inch of tire is

Weight/Number of square inches

And the stopping power is Friction (Pressure times coefficient) times square inches

So to completly make up a non-existent vehicle let's say we have a 10,000 pound ride with 100 square inches on the road

That's 100 pounds per square inch... Stopping power is 10,000C

now let's increase the number of tires so we have 200 square inches

We are now running 50 psi.. And the stopping power is 200$c or 10,000C (Where C is that coefficient I spoke of)

What happens if we cut the weight in half?

100 Square inches we now have 50 PSI and 5,000 C
200 Square inches it is 24 PSI and again 5,000 C

This is why vehicle size, number of tires and such do not matter.

He's the guy that only gets to play 12 regular season games next year right?.. hehe. He'll appeal. He'll win. That's the way it always is..

Oops, I better ask something that has to do with physics.
What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

aerbus32 wrote:
Me neither. Didn't take it. But have come across something called 'kinetic energy' (energy of movement) that is quantified by the formula K.E. = 1/2 Mass times Velocity Squared. The question often comes up on RV forums about how fast people drive their rigs and disagreements ensue. Just saying . . . Do the math.

OH Man!

I'm just figuring out the Pythagorean Theorem! Give me a break - will ya?

westend wrote:

Cloud Dancer wrote:
For some of us, it's no doubt interesting and fun to "go back to school". But, at my age, I'm looking for information that I might've missed, in my thirst for more knowledge regarding what I can do in order to decrease the chances of losing control whenever I'm driving my motorhome (or being involved in a crash).
Decreasing my speed to less than the speed "of the traffic" is bordering on giving up some degree of safety.....IMO
Therefore, I drive at a speed which I have determined to be the lowest safe speed.

That would be true if you were not also the "speed "of the traffic"". There is no loss of safety by being the slowest moving vehicle on a particular road.
Personally, I wouldn't be in a vehicle that has to move at 30 mph below the posted limit, though.

Would you please edit your reply such that I might understand what you're saying.
But, don't bother with the last sentence,.....I understand that one.

smkettner wrote:
If not linear there is no solution with data given.

Ding! Ding! Ding! - Correct Answer!

Cloud Dancer wrote:
For some of us, it's no doubt interesting and fun to "go back to school". But, at my age, I'm looking for information that I might've missed, in my thirst for more knowledge regarding what I can do in order to decrease the chances of losing control whenever I'm driving my motorhome (or being involved in a crash).
Decreasing my speed to less than the speed "of the traffic" is bordering on giving up some degree of safety.....IMO
Therefore, I drive at a speed which I have determined to be the lowest safe speed.

That would be true if you were not also the "speed "of the traffic"". There is no loss of safety by being the slowest moving vehicle on a particular road.
Personally, I wouldn't be in a vehicle that has to move at 30 mph below the posted limit, though.

smkettner wrote:
7.2289156626506 is still in original units. m/h^2 vs. ft/s^2

Ahh.. there's my error. Vf = 88ft/sec, not 60mph. Thanks!

The instructors always stressed the importance of the units, which should cancel out to give you a meaningful answer. I like physics, but I never 'applied' myself to it very well.

For some of us, it's no doubt interesting and fun to "go back to school". But, at my age, I'm looking for information that I might've missed, in my thirst for more knowledge regarding what I can do in order to decrease the chances of losing control whenever I'm driving my motorhome (or being involved in a crash).
Decreasing my speed to less than the speed "of the traffic" is bordering on giving up some degree of safety.....IMO
Therefore, I drive at a speed which I have determined to be the lowest safe speed.