I have no idea if it's within the rules (the commentators don't seem to have a problem with it), but IMO it's perfectly fair. All the other competitors are free to do the same manoeuvre, so while it's an advantage, it's not an unfair advantage.

"I wonder how many Gs they pulled coming out of that? and how much altitude they lost?"

Not sure about the G's but they lost 10000 feet in the manoeuvre. Look at the PIP in the upper right corner. The numbers beside the virtual aircraft represent the altitude.

I believe they stall at 15000 feet and pull out on the bottom around 5000 feet.

Fun ride... can we go again!!

Probably fake, but the technology is absolutely mature enough.

Self-driving cars are a solved problem. It's a matter of regulation, not research at this point.

In fact, once they reach critical mass, the problem actually becomes a lot easier from a technological standpoint. If all the cars on the road are AI, their behaviour becomes much more predictable, and a highway full of self-driving cars could easily communicate with each other, allowing increased traffic flow and reducing accidents.

Think about a simple scenario right now. You're driving in the fast lane on a multilane highway and your exit is coming up in a km or two. You need to cross 3 lanes, so you indicate and wait for a safe gap. You're completely dependent on the drivers in the other lane to let you in. But human nature being what it is, they might not want to let you in. Even if the first lane lets you through, the outer lanes have no idea what you want until they see you, so you have to repeat this manoeuvre a few times.

But with a highway of self-driving cars? Your car broadcasts its intentions on a localised network, and the other cars create a gap all the way to the exit. You move through and traffic resumes.

I've seen this exact manoeuvre in other videos as well. As daft as it seems, I'm starting to think it's SOP for loading a small digger onto a truck

Ok, maybe a pilot can correct me here, but that's not necessarily a violent or high stress manoeuvre. Pretty much all planes are able to do these tricks (including large passenger jets), they just aren't often flown that way. As long as they have enough air speed and engine power to not slow too much and stall out mid way through then there only needs to be a relatively small increase in load on the wings to do this.

The Vulcan is a very cool plane though. I live just down the road from where they used to keep the last flying one. A beautiful plane.

@ghark @Buttle aside from being hyperbolic for the sake of a joke, I am well aware of the skill required for that bail manoeuvre.

Doesn't lessen my contempt for the subject of this video.

@lantern53 See I'm not really an atheist, but I tend to side with them in 90% of arguments like this because of the terrible reasoning people like yourself make.

There is room to manoeuvre but it has to have rational and/or empirical rigour. Straw man arguments and black & white thinking will do little but embarrass oneself.

@Jinx nailed it with this line:
"So you're saying that, like love, God is all in your head?"

^That is about the only line of argument you could have made stick. Idea's like God's and love etc. exist in our minds and one could reasonably argue that this constitutes a kind of "existence" insofar as they affect the "reality" we experience, "reality" as we experience it is necessarily at least in part a product of the mind. (to be clear such things can ONLY be said to exist in our minds and collective imagination in lieu of material evidence)

The above at the very least moves the argument to one of materialism vs idealism. "Scientific Materialists" will still disagree as they refute the existence of mind as anything other than an illusion created by the interactions of matter and energy, but philosophically speaking that argument will at least go somewhere (hopefully phenomenology and existentialism if you think it through enough!).

If you'd gone that way I could have jumped in to try and help. But instead you used cheap shot logical fallacies even a 1st year theology student would balk at.

Sad Panda!

So as a point of pedantry....he could have totally made that corner if he had stayed off the brakes kept a steady throttle and leaned harder to the left (he was on course to make the corner if the car hadn't startled him). Braking is almost never the right thing to when in or leaving a corner, it just stands the bike up and sends you wide.

Target fixation is a bitch!

However, solid white lines mean no overtaking/crossing to the opposite lane for good reason (the entire manoeuvre was technically illegal here in the UK because of said solid lines). It was foolish to even attempt what he did there and doubly so if you haven't mastered proper corner control/reactions to be able to deal with the unexpected effectively (which he clearly had not as evidenced by the vid).

All of that said, we all make mistakes. This chap might normally be a better rider than he appears here and simply made a poor judgement call entering that corner which resulted in him panicking and having to bail. (He may also have been a retard with too much power and a death-wish. Those guys are definitely around)


Also Re: @Darkhand and @bcglorf

Bikes very rarely kill car drivers. It's generally only a side on collision with a door that can do that and even then only at serious speed. Bikes rarely weigh over 250kg and most sports bikes are sub 200kg. They simply don't carry anything like the kind of energy a car would even at 100mph+.

I'm not saying it's impossible but it would be very unlikely here. He however could have easily broken his neck if he'd hit the car head on. My brother had a head on with a car about a year ago at 60-70ish (combined) and fractured his (fortunately made a complete recovery since).

Bikers are almost always a far bigger danger to themselves than anyone else. This was reckless but mostly for himself.

I suspect however that lessons were at least learned!

Apart from the fact that larger planes than that routinely do. Just because larger aircraft are not normally manoeuvred so violently does not mean they are incapable.

Plus that's a relatively small plane in extreme crosswinds. I assure you as a lifetime plane nut that's not fake, just mad p1lot1ng sk1llz! (I would assume they are very low on fuel etc. as normally one would never attempt a landing in conditions that bad)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P9OAng32F0

Yah I think you're right. Being in good shape and able to run fast and for long distances is probably the best overall defence against something like this. If you're cornered then I think doing front/push kicks to keep them at a distance while you manoeuvre to escape is the most logical thing to do.>> ^KnivesOut:

A good time to use your parkour ability? i.e. run the fuck away?

Indeed, it was Hannibal's precise coordination (and his African cavalry) that allowed him to surround the Romans at Cannae, perhaps the first such manoeuvre in history (IANAH!). If he had capitalized on his early victories and marched on Rome after Cannae, he may well have taken the city. Instead he decided to dick around in southern Italy trying to convince the local tribes to join him, which gave Rome a chance to catch its breath...

>> ^enoch:

i was fascinated with this video.i thought this young orca was imitating the sound of a boat motor.
turns out he was an orphan and did indeed love motor boats.
from y/t:
Unfortunately, Luna died tragically as a result of accident. Once he played racing with a motor boat, its captain was also carried away by a play with the orca and he made an unexpected manoeuvre. Luna collided with the vanes and got split to pieces. The man sincerely blamed himself because of this accident but this mistake can't be corrected - Luna died. The motors that he loved so much became the result of his death...

now i am sad......

A friend sent me this video, and I thought it was cute, but didn't make the connection.

i was fascinated with this video.i thought this young orca was imitating the sound of a boat motor.
turns out he was an orphan and did indeed love motor boats.
from y/t:
Unfortunately, Luna died tragically as a result of accident. Once he played racing with a motor boat, its captain was also carried away by a play with the orca and he made an unexpected manoeuvre. Luna collided with the vanes and got split to pieces. The man sincerely blamed himself because of this accident but this mistake can't be corrected - Luna died. The motors that he loved so much became the result of his death...


now i am sad......

It's more the absolute running joke that games (Metal Gear Solid series in particular!) say "Air ducts are tactically sound!" - Then you move through, loud as a motherfucker with no space to manoeuvre and then you are kinda fucked when they toss in a grenade or similar.

It's just playing up to an Tactical Espionage (looking at you MGS!) cliche! (Although this appears in FPS and movies too!)

That help at all?


>> ^dvst8download:

As a commentary, it lacks two things to make it really work:
1. An actual story or gag.
and/or
2. Better performance to make it actually funny/interesting.
To me it just looks like going through the motions. The Sift can do better than this...
>> ^lucky760:
>> ^SeesThruYou:
Uhh... I don't get it. Pointless.

It's commentary on the true practicality of the novel idea of crawling around in air ducts to attack baddies. It might seem like a good idea, but it's really hard to move around and keep track of where you are. Worst of all, if someone attacks you, particularly with a grenade, you'll be really disappointed when you're unable to escape.

You see this at air shows all the time. It's perfectly normal for an unloaded plane to be able to manoeuvre and climb like that, but still a great sight to see nonetheless.

It's also surprising how much power is untapped during normal flight. If you've ever been in a late, aborted landing you'll know what I mean. For an aborted landing, they ram on the engines to full and climb at some crazy angle (well it feels like it that's for sure), and that's with a fully loaded plane full of passengers and luggage.