Braking v. speed
Author
Discussion

Philbes

Original Poster:

4,888 posts

264 months

Friday 31st March 2006
quotequote all
Although I, like many on here, have been known to drive above the 70mph speed limit on motorways the following should be born in mind.

2 identical cars are travelling on a motorway, but one is doing 70mph and one is doing 100mph. Both brake hard at the same time with the same force. When the car that was doing 70mph comes to a complete stop, the car that was doing 100mph is still going at 71mph and has travelled much further.

If the speeds are 30mph and 45mph the speed of the second when the first stops is 33½mph.

BliarOut

72,863 posts

269 months

Friday 31st March 2006
quotequote all
Ah, but if one is a 1950's Anglia with drum brakes and one is a Porsche 911 with big fat tyres and brakes what happens then? It is for the driver to set a safe speed according to his vehicles capabilities don't you think?

safespeed

2,983 posts

304 months

Friday 31st March 2006
quotequote all
Philbes said:
2 identical cars are travelling on a motorway, but one is doing 70mph and one is doing 100mph. Both brake hard at the same time with the same force. When the car that was doing 70mph comes to a complete stop, the car that was doing 100mph is still going at 71mph and has travelled much further.


The trouble with that view is that it's TOTALLY unrelated to the real world experience of driving.

The following graph shows, in meaningful terms, exactly how the driving experience differs between various speeds:



In words, you need about 1.5 seconds' worth of extra clear space to support safely increasing speed from 70mph to 100mph.

Much more detail on: www.safespeed.org.uk/braking.html

turbobloke

117,293 posts

290 months

Friday 31st March 2006
quotequote all
BliarOut said:
Ah, but if one is a 1950's Anglia with drum brakes and one is a Porsche 911 with big fat tyres and brakes what happens then? It is for the driver to set a safe speed according to his vehicles capabilities don't you think?
Yes I do think, nobody knows for sure the distance a car will take to stop, not only for the reasons you outline - differences between cars and the nonsense of outdated Highway Code stopping distances - but also because driver differences and driving conditions will have an effect. As a driver of the aforementioned pork, and my fillet is considerably lighter than its maker intended so it has brakes that are 'uprated', stopping distances are a world away from outddated theory or even manufacturer's figures. I'd hazard a guess that it would stop from 100 quicker than an Anglia or Moggy from 70.

BliarOut

72,863 posts

269 months

Friday 31st March 2006
quotequote all
Ditto... While Pork engines are good, the brakes are truly astonishing. If I deploy them fully I'm more concerned about what's behind me than what's in front. That's what really hacks me off when other cars tailgate, they just don't realise how fast a 911 can stop

Parrot of Doom

23,075 posts

264 months

Friday 31st March 2006
quotequote all
The whole 'distance' argument is silly anyway, I know of noone that can predict how quickly they'll be able to stop in terms of feet and metres.

If you're driving properly, you'll automatically slow down when hazzards approach. People who say 'ah but drive slower you have more time to stop' are eejiots IMO, I'll have more time to stop because I'll be paying attention and leave more space.

turbobloke

117,293 posts

290 months

Friday 31st March 2006
quotequote all
mungo said:
If you are reading the road and planning ahead then you shouldn't be driving faster than you can safely stop anyway
I found myself agreeing totally there, then the spirit of vh started to tweak my subconscious and i found myself wanting to type "...faster than you can safely stop OR THE SPEED LIMIT whichever is reached first" but on second thoughts I won't say anything


Oooops...

Philbes

Original Poster:

4,888 posts

264 months

Friday 31st March 2006
quotequote all
We don't all drive expensive German sports cars. What if the Ford Anglia is behind you?

As my original post said, "two identical cars". The same holds true for 2 identical expensive German sports cars.

The general point is that if a car is travelling at Xmph and another IDENTICAL car is travelling at 1½ x Xmph and both brake at the same time then when the first car comes to a stop the second car will still be going faster than the original speed of the first car and will also have travelled past where the first car has stopped (if it hasn't pile into the back!).

>> Edited by Philbes on Friday 31st March 18:01

sultanbrown

5,740 posts

261 months

Friday 31st March 2006
quotequote all
Right, so what we have established is that braking distances increase with speed.

Thanks for that.

GreenV8S

31,024 posts

314 months

Friday 31st March 2006
quotequote all
What is the relevence of the example? Surely that is only relevent if you have a car travelling at 100 mph directly behind another car travelling at 70 mph which then brakes hard. Which is an obviously dangerous position to be in, thanks for pointing that out.

More relevent I would have thought is how many people actually know their stopping distance in real-world terms at say 80 mph? As in, how long does it take to drive the length of the skid marks that you would leave in an emergency stop in ideal conditions? The answer may surprise you.

turbobloke

117,293 posts

290 months

Friday 31st March 2006
quotequote all
Philbes said:
We don't all drive expensive German sports cars. What if the Ford Anglia is behind you?
OK what if it is? There are mirrors fitted even in cheap German cars.
Philbes said:
As my original post said, "two identical cars". The same holds true for 2 identical expensive German sports cars. The general point is that if a car is travelling at Xmph and another IDENTICAL car is travelling at 1½ x Xmph and both brake at the same time then when the first car comes to a stop the second car will still be going faster than the original speed of the first car and will also have travelled past where the first car has stopped.
In your first example, 70mph and 100mph, it's close. Taking these to be 30m/s and 43m/s, and an even braking deceleration of 1g (10 m/s^2) then the 70mph car will stop in 45m and the 100 mph car in 92m.

At the point where the 70mph car has stopped the 100mph car will be travelling at 31 m/s, yes just above the 30m/s.

But if the two cars aren't in any risk of occupying the same space what does it matter? Just a fun thing to do with a fag packet

Fish

4,064 posts

312 months

Friday 31st March 2006
quotequote all
In real terms my T350c would stop in about 80 yards according to the 100yard roundabout markers from 90mph IN THE DRY ON A WARM DAY.... in the wet with cold brakes about 200 -250 yards

The conditions also make a big difference.

safespeed

2,983 posts

304 months

Friday 31st March 2006
quotequote all
GreenV8S said:
More relevent I would have thought is how many people actually know their stopping distance in real-world terms at say 80 mph? As in, how long does it take to drive the length of the skid marks that you would leave in an emergency stop in ideal conditions? The answer may surprise you.


And the typical answer is in this graph:



The graph also includes 0.75 seconds for reaction time, so you could deduct that to answer the original question.

dickymint

29,149 posts

288 months

Friday 31st March 2006
quotequote all
GreenV8S said:
What is the relevence of the example? Surely that is only relevent if you have a car travelling at 100 mph directly behind another car travelling at 70 mph which then brakes hard. Which is an obviously dangerous position to be in, thanks for pointing that out.

More relevent I would have thought is how many people actually know their stopping distance in real-world terms at say 80 mph? As in, how long does it take to drive the length of the skid marks that you would leave in an emergency stop in ideal conditions? The answer may surprise you.


In mine and your car Green.....about a mile

Philbes

Original Poster:

4,888 posts

264 months

Friday 31st March 2006
quotequote all
The point I was trying to make was hinted at by the person who said that not all people can estimate distance. Indicating the extra braking distance required by extra speed (thanks for pointing that out to me!) in terms of speed still carried by the 'faster' car when the 'slower' car stops was just an alternative way of pointing out the considerable extra distance required to stop for a proportionly lesser increase in speed.

This is obviously the wrong forum to point this out as your posts would indicate that you all perfect drivers who are never in danger of not always being aware of your own and other cars/drivers stopping distances in all road conditions. I only wish I was as perfect.

My examples are not nearly right - they are right. 1.414 times the speed is 2 times the energy. Brakes turn energy into heat at almost a constant rate so when the first car stops the second car will have the same energry left as the first car had before it braked, so will ALWAYS be going at the original speed of the first car. If the speed differential is more than 1.414 times then the second car will still be going faster than the original speed of the first car when it stops.

I was just trying to put a well known fact (higher speed - longer braking distance) another way. Remember the terrible 35mph v 30 mph advert on telly? Perhaps telling the viewers (not you lot of course) that when a car doing 30 had stopped one that was doing 35 would still be doing 20.6 would have more impact (pun NOT intended).


>> Edited by Philbes on Friday 31st March 18:55

turbobloke

117,293 posts

290 months

Friday 31st March 2006
quotequote all
Philbes said:
This is obviously the wrong forum to point this out as your posts would indicate that you all perfect drivers
Do please indicate the post that even hints at that view, vh excepted of course

turbobloke

117,293 posts

290 months

Friday 31st March 2006
quotequote all
Philbes said:
I was just trying to put a well known fact (higher speed - longer braking distance) another way. Remember the terrible 35mph v 30 mph advert on telly? Perhaps telling the viewers (not you lot of course) that when a car doing 30 had stopped one that was doing 35 would still be doing 20.6 would have more impact (pun NOT intended).
Well as you're posting on here shouldn't that be 'us lot' not 'you lot'? Quite apart from which, the advert you refer to has been the subject of a lot of posts on SPL, due to the fact that - and I'm talking strictly scientific technical terminology here - it's mind-numbingly vacuous, unrealistic, targets the wrong issues, gives all the wrong messages, and will do zilch for road safety. Apart from that it's OK.

Rob_the_Sparky

1,000 posts

268 months

Friday 31st March 2006
quotequote all
Not sure what you are trying to get at actually. e.g. it is a well know fact that braking distances are a square law due to KE = 0.5mv^2 hence braking distances are partly governed by a suqare law (plus reaction times) and your point is?

Rob

GreenV8S

31,024 posts

314 months

Saturday 1st April 2006
quotequote all
safespeed said:
And the typical answer is in this graph:


Well I know *you* know that Paul, but I wonder how many people are able to visualize the braking distance terms of the 'two second rule'?

GreenV8S

31,024 posts

314 months

Saturday 1st April 2006
quotequote all
Philbes said:
My examples are not nearly right - they are right. 1.414 times the speed is 2 times the energy. Brakes turn energy into heat at almost a constant rate so when the first car stops the second car will have the same energry left as the first car had before it braked, so will ALWAYS be going at the original speed of the first car. If the speed differential is more than 1.414 times then the second car will still be going faster than the original speed of the first car when it stops.


You were doing quite well up to that point. Actually brakes do NOT provide a constant power dissipation and you have misunderstood the reason for the quadratic relationship between speed and stopping distance. But feel free to continue with the lecture. I'm sure you're going to reach your point eventually ...