If the record is 99.9% due to the equipment, give it to the engineer, not the ballast. ;-)
Eric Barone hit 141 on his own with some downhill, but no tow, no draft. That's more impressive to me, but still largely a function of his equipment.
I've never topped 40 without a draft or hill, and I used to ride 25-30 miles a day.

The fastest unassisted human powered bicycle speed is 89.5 mph. That record I can accept without an asterisk.

Edit: using that full faring recumbent bike and the dragster tow in/draft the dragster would always be the limiting factor, not the bike rider. The tow has to do with making it possible, wind resistance is the limiting factor on bicycles, but even without any getting up to that speed using human power is not possible. She needed fresh legs to keep up for under one minute under optimal conditions.
I think pro riders don't go for this record because they don't see it as a legitimate riding record, just a dangerous equipment test.

Which i would guess could be achieved by a ridiculous amount of riders (with equal equipment), if so inclined. I doubt the rider has as much to do with it as the bike itself, and dragster slip stream. I also believe her balls are quite large to do such a thing.

She was on a friggin' bicycle drafting behind a dragster at 184 MPH and SHE'S NOT EVEN AN AVID RIDER!

Also, it's not easy being behind someone that's breaking wind.

Suck it up dude!

If you want to talk about being "less impressive", bobsledding does it for me.
nooffensebob

Nice to see more than just a few ladies there. Then again, it could have been guys in dragster....

Now even Guinness is pulling all of Roger's records. Ouch.

https://kotaku.com/guinness-officially-nixes-todd-rogers-dragster-records-1822568394

*motorsports *fire and *fail ...a winning combination!
*promote the insanity of top fuel dragster fails

And that's why dragsters have 4 super strong straps attached to the blower. Without them, it could easily have launched into the stands/pits.

It sure did blow up good, though.

Your video, Drifting a Top Fuel dragster, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

5.38 second quarter mile...fast ride---
Oddly, the top fuel dragsters (internal combustion engines) can run it faster (4.5 seconds, with a trap speed of 332 mph...)

Bugatti Veyron around 10.1 seconds at 139 mph
Corvette Z06 runs 11.2 to 11.6 seconds...
VW GTE runs 15.2
and a 2013 Prius about 18 seconds...

Your video, Watch dragsters blow up in slo-mo, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Also, like a rail dragster, his extended forks allows for acceleration torque beyond the point the CBR would flip over on it's back. The Harley has almost twice the wheel base.

Give the CBR a wheelie bar and grandpa would be looking at tail lights the whole trip.

Why do yodelers climb Denali? Why strap into a dragster? Why don the dreaded, wingsuit?

And that makes ten votes. Had a rotor failure on one of our race cars a few years back and it was a frightening crash. I can't imagine a dragster going out of control

Confession: As well as pimping this video from my banned account on another video I also voted for it 3 times as choggie, Peckinpaw, and chingalera.

Oh, and I am not at all remorseful about broken roles, rules..breaking rules! It's how my school bus of demolition ROLLS!!

My other car is a happy station wagon with uplifting bumper-stickers and children inside on their way to private Kung Fu lessons...

Are you ever going to address the fact that the Great Depression was ended by massive record deficits, followed by taxing the richest by over 90%?

Your entire argument is deficits never work, and raising taxes on the rich hurts the economy. I just gave you an irrefutable example of that being dead wrong, and you go into FDR's New Deal. Dude, I'm not debating the New Deal with you.

Prove that the US economy got out of the Great Depression without massive deficits (regardless if it was New Deal spending or WWII spending, it's irrelevant), followed by massively taxing the rich over 90% in the 1950s, during which the US economy was extremely prosperous.

That's the thing, dude. You can try to dodge this all you want. I'm not letting you try to move to discussing the New Deal, or Social Security, or how apparently communist George W. Bush (SERIOUSLY?!?!? WTFBBQ?!?!?!?) is.

This example in US history proves your rigid, ideological economic philosophy is dead wrong. You can't argue honestly that deficits are always bad, and massive gov't spending is always bad, and the US gov't can't help aid in turning around the economy. It most certainly can. It indisputably did. There's no "some fact" to this. It absolutely is historical fact.

That's the thing. Once you admit that yes, deficits can and do help end recessions, and taxing the rich more heavily can be good for the economy, we might be able to actually have an honest, adult conversation about how to help the economy. Until that, you're just spewing idiotic and/or intentional misinformation.

And then you just completely glossed over the entire reason why the gov't is almost always the one who HAS to spark the economic turnaround. We NEED the gov't to stimulate the economy, just as we need the gov't to put the brakes on when the economy grows too quickly, which is when those deficits can get paid for incidentally.

Are you just gonna sit there and call everyone other than the Tea Party communists, or are you actually going to address any of this?

>> ^quantumushroom:

The rich pay a higher percentage, and more taxes overall than the poor. Why do you think anyone is saying otherwise?

And that's absolutely how it should be, for the good of everyone, rich included.
But why doth "the poor," who siphon the "free" money, have no civic responsibility at all? Shouldn't they be paying something into the system? Or maybe "dependency voters" are needed by a certain political party?

It's perfectly sensible to talk about why some people don't pay any taxes at all. I'm not even debating that. But the rich should still pay more, regardless. The US has been one of the strongest economies for most of the 20th and 21st centuries with a progressive income tax, and it's been a heck of a lot more progressive than it is now, and we were still very prosperous.
The rich already DO pay more. It will do NO GOOD to shakedown the rich for ever more $$$. The problem with tax addicts is they can never get enough. It's too easy to spend money. Destroy the incentive to invest and/or create (or deny there is incentive at all) and you get stagnation. GOVERNMENT CREATES NOTHING.
Showing fraud in some programs doesn't mean the program should be abolished. It can be reformed as well. There are plenty of ways to do that. We didn't abolish welfare in the 1990s. We reformed it. And no, it's not true that private businesses will always create the jobs when the economy is down. History has proven quite the opposite. Why would a business invest to make more goods and services if there's no market for it. A downturn in the economy breeds more economic decline. It's called a business cycle, and it's a natural occurrence. If you were a business owner, generally speaking, if you know less people out there have the money to buy your goods and services, would you increase production and hire more workers? Of course not. Does the average person put more money into the stock market or take money out when the market tanks? Takes money out, which drains money for investing. This is basic micro and macroeconomics.
But what about now, when our cherished federal mafia creates INstability? No sane businessperson will hire now with the Hawaiian Dunce in office. I've heard this claptrap about government spending as savior before.
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."

Henry Morganthau, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Some force has to run counter to the natural tendencies of the market to force demand to increase, and of course this virtually always requires running a deficit. This is why slogans like "the gov't should be run like a business" are simplistic and wrong. The gov't should in those situations create jobs through various programs, thereby increasing income for the lower classes, which creates spending and demand, which then causes businesses to increase production, hire more workers, and that gets the economy back on track. You can site case study after case study in our history we've done this, and it worked.
But it's not working now, is it. OOPS! I agree that govt should not be run like a business. It should instead by treated like the dangerous raw force it is, because that's ALL it is.

We ended the Great Depression via defense spending in the form of WWII in record levels as the most obvious exaggerated example. That historically was qm's worst nightmare - record deficits in raw amount at the time, and still to this day historic
record deficits as a percentage of GDP during WWII, followed by a tax raise on the richest Americans to over 90%. And what calamity befell the US because of those policies? We ended the Great Depression, became an economic Superpower, and Americans enjoyed record prosperity it and the world had never seen before.
This is historical fact that simply can't be denied.
There's some fact in there, but the cause and effect seems a little skewered.
FDR was a fascist, perhaps benevolent in his own mind, but a fascist in practice nonetheless, the sacred cow and Creator of the modern, unsustainable welfare state. He had no idea what he was doing and there is a growing body of work
suggesting his policies prolonged the Depression.

Here's what happened - Democrats deficit spent as they were supposed to (which is exactly what the GOP would have done had they been in power, because it was started by George W. Bush), which stopped the economic free fall.
This is all quite arguable. Yes, Bush the-liberal-with-a-few-conservative-tendencies ruined his legacy with scamulus spending, but nothing--NOTHING--close to 3 trillion in 3 years! Spending-wise, it's comparing a dragster to a regular hemi.

Moody's didn't downgrade the US debt. It was S&P. They sited math about the alarming deficits which contained a $2 trillion mistake on their part. They also sited political instability as the GOP was risking default to get their policies in place, which btw still include massive deficits.
Do you wonder why you can so neatly explain things while the Democrats in DC, with their arses on the line, cannot? The failed scamulus has forced the DC dunces to change boasts like "jobs saved" to "lives touched". Apparently there's a lot more to this tale than the Donkey Version.

The GOP couldn't stop the Democrats from spending all that money?! Laughable.
They didn't have the votes.

The GOP started the freakin' bailouts and stimulus! What did the GOP do the last time there was a recession after 9/11? Deficit spent, then continued to deficit spend when the economy was strong. Dude, seriously, you have no factual basis for
that kind of claim whatsoever.
Compare taxocrats' dragster-speed spending of the last three years versus Repub spending during the 8 years before it. The argument of "But they do it too!" has some merit, but as the rise of the Tea Party has shown, business-as-usual is no longer acceptable.
Oh, and taxocrats, remember this: the Hawaiian Dunce considers anyone making over 250K to be millionaires and billionaires.