The MSF courses all tell you that you need to never enter a corner going too fast. You can speed up a bit or maintain, but having to use the brakes in a corner means you're splitting your traction between cornering forces and deceleration. Also, using the front brake makes the bike want to straighten back up from a lean.

This guy dropped his speed by 30mph from when he entered the corner to when he went off the pavement. I don't believe him when he claims that his steering locked up.

Most airliners have wings designed to be used in low transsonic. They can't effectively go faster. They would literally lose lift if they went faster. Their wing shape is made to only delay the onset of shockwaves on top of the wing (flat-ish top), allowing it to safely creep closer to mach1 than otherwise, but not to operate within/past mach1.

Fan/propeller blades themselves are also mach limited.
(They can be designed to be supersonic, but then you end up with something like this... which in hindsight nobody wants : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_XF-84H)
A subsonic airfoil in a fan/propeller, operating near/at supersonic speed, loses the ability to move/redirect air, due to shockwave disruption of the airflow.

Fans/propellers with subsonic blades that spin at subsonic speeds are effectively speed limited. They lose efficiency above ~500 mph, where they begin to stop generating thrust as they travel faster. Their pitch has to increase higher and higher, until they are no longer much of an airscrew and more of a 'feathered' configuration.

Supersonic jet engines use intake devices (such as shock cones) to decelerate incoming air to subsonic speeds, so the compressor (itself a fan, i.e. a highly multi bladed propeller) can operate on that air to compress it and feed the engine combustion chambers.
Airliners have no intake devices to decelerate incoming air, and they would lose engine compression when entering near mach1 speeds.

Furthermore, their bypass fans (which are glorified propellers) would stop providing thrust.

You would need to design different planes (like the concorde). You can't just throttle up a modern airliner and go faster [than X limit] - like you can in a modern car.

-scheherazade

Because the anchor is at the rear of the vehicle, it would normalise any such manouver, ie. a sudden turn that would typically result in a roll over (assume back left wheel is trapped and the suspect turns hard left or right) would be arrested by the trap if they turned left, as the left wheel would want to rise to flip the car, and might actually be exacerbated if they turn right, where the tether would go under the car and anchor the wheel, increasing the momentum of the body of the car over that pivot point.

However, much like the example of weight in the rear of a trailer reducing the chance of loss of control, any turn would be damped by the addition of an entire car attached to the back of the vehicle, such that I think any turning manouver would likely be dulled substantially.

Additionally, as soon as the thing is deployed, the car is going to decelerate rapidly as it's essentially anchored.

On the surface, if you can control the deployment, looks like it would be a winner.

I was thinking they'd probably be better off laying the load across the ship, although I'm sure there's probably some rule of thumb I'm missing as I've never even knowingly talked to a longshoreman.

I can't see a freighter accelerating or decelerating quickly enough to cause movement like listing through waves. Plus, if you get side gusts, it would cut down on the wind resistance.

IANAMD. My understanding is that contrary to intuitions, deceleration on a motor cycle is more dangerous than acceleration. Maintaining stability is your primary concern, less so velocity of impact. You also don't want to be overtaken by faster traffic, you'd rather see your threats. My friends who do ride motorcycles tell me they are taught to drive aggressively by default. I don't think braking is your first instinct in tight quarters.

Totally true....but in all honesty, my car is so rusted that the entire body is really a crumple zone at this point, but not an engineered crumple zone.
The bronco is much taller/higher than the discovery in that vid, and much tougher, with 500%-1000% more bumper, but it only has lap belts, not even a shoulder strap, so in that situation if I don't drive up over them I'll probably take a steering wheel through the chest.
EDIT:The Jeep is even higher, so more likely to drive over anything, with no bumper, just protruding front tires to bounce off or pop, full 2.5" roll cage, and four point seat belts attached to the cage. It's safer than any normal car made today thanks to the add ons.

BUT, remember, the crumple zones work to decelerate BOTH cars in an accident, not just the car with the crumple zone, so as long as the car I hit has them, I'll be OK....maybe. My CAR will certainly survive better than the newer car, at least. ;-)

I think the SpaceX attempts are more impressive, but wow, watching that thing decelerate as it heads towards the bulls-eye is amazing.

I don't know about much of the stuff you've brought up, but they were pretty clear that the 3 day travel time was for a 100 kg capsule. They said that a shuttle would take longer (a month I think). It seems likely that this is due to increased mass, meaning that acceleration and deceleration times are included.

Constant 1G acceleration followed by constant 1 G deceleration gets you to Mars in about 50-75 hours, and you never get anywhere near relativistic velocity. It's just a matter of scalability. If you develop an engine that can accelerate a given mass at. 001g, and it's made light enough that most of that mass is payload, you just scale up with an array of 1000 of them and you're at 1G.

I'm confused. They imply a 3 day trip to mars is possible, but is that at the maximum speed photonic propulsion can deliver, or do they include the acceleration and deceleration times? As I understood it, photonic propulsion can deliver extreme speeds, but only at a minimal acceleration. That means that maximum speed is much faster, but accelerating to that speed takes immensely longer, and the same goes for deceleration. Maybe they've invented a new method I've not heard of with much higher acceleration, but that's not really mentioned in the video.
They actually seem to imply they plan to use the same tech as cyclotrons, which means essentially a huge rail gun (and that's not photonic propulsion BTW, it's magnetic). Again, the amount of propulsion is miniscule, but the top speed is high with that method. Yes, you can expel matter at near speed of light, but only in tiny amounts and using huge amounts of energy.
Yes, it may take 10 minutes to achieve 30% the speed of light....with single molecules or atoms.
There are MANY reasons why we can't do this at macro sizes. Just look at the size of a cyclotron needed to accelerate an atom to those relativistic speeds. Now think about sizing that up to accelerate enough matter to move a spaceship instead of a single atom and it's likely near the size of the entire planet. We won't be building a cyclotron that size ever, nor will we likely ever shrink the accelerators to a size where they can fit inside a spaceship to shoot trillions of atoms out like a light speed gun. They are just too big and use too much power. Maybe once fusion is perfected and miniaturization also perfected it could work for interstellar travel, but never for local space travel, the acceleration levels are just too small.
Also, it seems solar sails give the same or better acceleration to the same top speeds without the impossible technology....but they don't work too well for stopping except at other stars.

The booster is not orbital. It's on a ballistic, suborbital flight just as for the Blue Origin booster. The second stage goes to orbit and note that they are not trying to recover that one at all, let alone land it.

In fact, the SpaceX booster does several deceleration burns in space, and so experiences less aerodynamic stress than does the Blue Origin booster, which actually flies faster, according to the article I linked above.

A collision with two cars head on with a combined impact speed of 200km/h is not actually equivalent to this test at all. If you do the math you actually work out that two cars each travelling at 100km/h hitting head on generate the same forces on their occupants as a single car hitting a fixed barrier at 100km/h. (reference, sadly light on mathematical proof)

The 5th gear test at 193km/h resulted in occupant deceleration of 400g (100g is survivable, although you can expect injuries such as detached retina, and I have heard of someone surviving 179g). Robert Kubica's accident resulted in a peak g-force reading of 75g.

200km/h crash into a stationary object is like 2 cars hitting head-on at 100km/h each.

TBH, that kind of scenario is quite reasonable.

Here's what a car that can protect the drive in that kind of crash looks like :

300 kph into wall, at ~45 degrees.

(45 degree bounce = 70% of 300hp/h instant deceleration in the direction right-angle to the wall = 212kph immediate deceleration)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtrzvwayniM

Guy had a moderately injured leg.

-scheherazade

I'm guessing purely from a forces standpoint that if you were stood up, you'd be a lot more likely to survive than if you were lying down, like the video says. Mainly because your internal organs and brain are about to be decelerating, and you want to minimise the deceleration as much as possible. Your extremities might get pulverised, but without the organs they're not much use anyway.

There's some historic example about a 1945 bomber crashing into the Empire State Building, severing the ropes and inducing free-fall, but the lift's ropes coiled up and cushioned the occupant's fall and they lived. I just looked it up, and apparently only several times has free fall ever happened, only killing one person. But apparently people die from falling in the shafts, mechanics caught in machinery and strangulation from scarves caught in doors.

You really want to pin the fault on that phone.. there is no fault on that phone. The accident was a side impact, someone drove INTO the truck.. the truck did not drive into anyone, it did not lose control, run any lights, he was doing everything he was supposed to. Just because he was on the phone did not impact anything but his ability to react quickly to a stupid driver making an illegal merge.

Oh yea if he was another semi truck, he cant just slam on the breaks. His load would jackknife. His only choice would be to let the car bounce off his side while he made a controlled deceleration.