Claire.

TacoDelRio wrote:FWIW, it's my belief that a car can always exceed a motorcycle's maximum traction ability on such roads.

That is true.

However, by virtue of a sport bike's very high P/W ratio, it will almost always out-accelerate a car exiting a turn. In certain situations, it can also out-brake a car. But in general, the absolute limit of traction of a bike will never be as high as a car, especially a well set-up car.

All other things being equal, in a controlled environment (i.e., a track, with corner workers, etc.), a well-driven car will edge a well-ridden motorcycle, but only just.

But the real truth is that there are far, far too many variables for any of this to really mean that much, and those variables include the bikes and cars themselves, the rubber (R vs. DOT compounds) they're running, the driver's/rider's skill, road surface, surface temps, ratio of time spent cornering vs. straight ahead acceleration, etc.

Okay, boring. Back to your regularly scheduled argument!

All those taken into account, a car with an average setup (say, matching a bone stock Honda S2000 against a GSX-R 600 or whatever seems the bike equivalent) should be able to get a quicker ET between two points on an average SoCal mountain road (one with dirt/sand/dust/softball-size rocks on the tarmac, some potholes, scrapes, etc) than a bike, given two equally skilled drivers. This is in an uncontrolled environment, one with weather and the aforementioned conditions(though not figuring in traffic, as we'll assume it's closed ).

Often times the difference in corner exit acceleration between a car and an equivalent bike is made up for with the car's traction and safety advantages. One of the safety advantages would be that a vehicle with 4 points of contact (generally speaking) is more forgiving than one with only two, not that one can use this as a measurable variable in the equation of chasing a bike.

Boring is fun!

Sorry to go further off topic. So how 'bout them Lakers?

I've had quite a bit of fun in my RX-8 on ACH. My skills behind the wheel redefine the limits of the automobile.

TacoDelRio wrote:Often times the difference in corner exit acceleration between a car and an equivalent bike is made up for with the car's traction...

Exactly. And that point was buried somewhere in my unfortunate missive!

TacoDelRio wrote:...One of the safety advantages would be that a vehicle with 4 points of contact (generally speaking) is more forgiving than one with only two not that one can use this as a measurable variable in the equation of chasing a bike.

Yeah, hard to measure precisely, but a major contributor to a car's higher overall speed through a given twisty course. By "forgiving" I suppose you mean less likely to punish driver/rider error? Each system has its own limit of traction, and neither would be more or less forgiving per se, but relative to each other, yes, a car is much harder to roll than a motorcycle is to high-side or drop.

The idea of a safety advantage is kind of irrelevant in terms of absolute performance and the limits of traction. That's really only a factor in terms of protecting the driver/rider in the case of an off, and, to a lesser extent, may figure in to the very subjective measure of a pilot's willingness to extend risk, knowing how relatively safe he or she might be in case of an off.

I know from experience that driving on a track with my former caged race car with race seat, harness, helmet, suit, window nets, fire suppression, flags, corner workers, etc., that you'll take risks you'd never dream of on the road. Unless you're insane!

Funny, I had a bone stock S2000 too. Loved it, but a change of life circumstances meant it needed to leave, and I had too many cars.

1000peaks will love me!

Sorry I haven't been on in a couple days.

You have an RX8, NH?

3deserts, that's what I mean. You slip up a tiny bit in a car, chances are you might meet a berm or something, instead of spilling and using your leather. I'm using it to talk about the mental aspect versus the scientific aspect, that immeasurable quantity of motivation or whatever else that contributes to "fast". Kinda like climbing hard winter routes solo sorta thing.

Got a guy I know now who has a supercharged S2000 with 400rwhp+, stripped caged all that.

1000 peaks isn't a fan of fun, is he?

This article says they hope to have it open from La Canada to Red Box in December: http://www.glendalenewspress.com/news/t ... 4592.story

Oh well, the added inconvenience of going up through Tujunga keeps the riff raff down to a minimum

EDIT: May 16, 2011....ACH STILL CLOSED.

More mismanagement by the USFS. Now they plan to plant millions of non-native trees.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 5022.story

"If they are planting big-cone Douglas fir forests with Coulter pines, that is not an appropriate form of ecosystem management," said U.S. Geological Survey biologist Jon Keeley.

"We'll get as close as we can to the species mix that existed before the fire came through, realizing that we may not be 100% or even 80% accurate," Dumpis said of critics' concerns. "Facing arson-caused fires, smog, nonnative weeds and grasses, global warming and millions of annual visitors, we decided it was wiser to move ahead with this project rather than to wait or do nothing at all."

Significant portions of the 560,000 seedlings to be planted this spring on 4,000 acres were grown from seeds harvested from Coulter pines that evolved in separate mountain ranges, including in the Cleveland, Los Padres and San Bernardino national forests, Forest Service officials said.

Assuming the trees survive, 50 years from now, do you really think that anyone will care that the trees are native to the Cleveland, Los Padre, and San Bernardino forest and not the San Gabriel? I think people will be happy just to have trees.

For any trees to survive, the brush would have to be periodically cleared. I've looked at places that were logged of all the big trees, afterwards the brush moves in and chokes out anything else that tries to grow.

The closure of many of the front country peaks has been lifted today. Tujunga canyon and Condor Peak are still closed.
USFS INFO

LA Times article

The very popular Colby canyon trail on Strawberry Peak has been off limits to any would-be trailworkers for the past two years and is now in terrible shape.

Rob wrote:The very popular Colby canyon trail on Strawberry Peak has been off limits to any would-be trailworkers for the past two years and is now in terrible shape.

That trail and peak are still in the closure area.

testid wrote:

Rob wrote:The very popular Colby canyon trail on Strawberry Peak has been off limits to any would-be trailworkers for the past two years and is now in terrible shape.

That trail and peak are still in the closure area.

According to the closure area map, yeah it's within that closed area...but, In the LA Times article I read this:

The reopening could not come soon enough for Tyler Wallace, a 32-year-old engineer and avid hiker, who was forced to seek another adventure Sunday when a forest ranger said Wallace would not be able to climb 6,000-foot Strawberry Peak for 24 more hours.

And, the sign at the colby Canyon trailhead that says "Trail not maintained, hazards may exist" was just placed within the last few weeks, and it replaces the sign they had there since the fire, that said "Trail closed".

Plus I'm done waiting. So yesterday I set out after work to hike the peak, thinking I might be the first one up there since the fire two years ago. Turns out, after reaching the summit, and checking the summit log (which survived the fire suprisingly) I found entries from 2010 and as recently as the day before.

So the USFS has their thumbs firmly planted in their asses still. Map says one thing, sign says another, and a ranger spewing gibberish to the L.A. Times is taken as gospel.

Rob wrote:The closure of many of the front country peaks has been lifted today. Tujunga canyon and Condor Peak are still closed.
USFS INFO

LA Times article

Thanks for the links Rob.

As for what is open and what isn't.... I was wondering about that Colby Canyon sign because looking at the map provided by the USFS it's clearly in the "blue zone" which is labeled as closed. But the sign sure seems to indicate otherwise.

Way back when I started this thread I had a similar situation with a ranger where I asked about the forest and what was open and what wasn't. At first he says, "The whole forest is closed." Then after I asked about certain areas on the front side of the San Gabriels above Pasadena he says,"Well, certain areas are open."

Truth be told, I think a lot of the rangers don't even know what's open and what isn't. I think they're kind of left in the dark more often than not, but who knows?

I had another incident up on the West Fork of the San Gabriel River to go do some fly fishing. After the Station Fire 2 miles past the parking lot the road was closed. On the way up there I stopped by the ranger station in Azusa to check and see if the area was open, and the ranger told me to go up there, check if there was a sign saying "Area Closed." If there was, it's was closed. If not, it was open.

???????

Go figure.


Gusto