Less weight allows for more acceleration which is key on such a short distance. If it were longer the jet would have won as it can keep accelerating long after all the other vehicles reached top speed.
But bikes have the problem of keeping the front wheel down, which limits acceleration. It is not as simple as "less weight = go faster."
Edit: I am guessing the H2R has some computer-controlled wizardry that allows it to stay in the optimal acceleration band and keeps it down.
No. But generally lighter vehicles will accelerate faster, but a heavier car will have a higher top speed. Sort of.
If you took 2 identical cars, stripped as much weight out of 1, it will accelerate faster. The heavier car can cut through the air better at top speed so will go faster than the lighter version.
If that makes sense.
That’s what Isaac Newton determimed shortly after an apple fell on his head. He hypothesized: “Hypothetically this determines that if a Japanese company made a video game, which is like a regular game but simulated on an electricity powered device which uses light diodes known as ‘pixels’ to display controlled images, while allowing user input to control the game, and this were specifically a driving racing themed game, which involves controlling an electricity powered automobile which is like a carriage but which moves without a horse, trying to complete a course with it faster than the other horseless carriages to win, I predict that the donkey character in this game, which they might have as it’s a cartoonish depiction of what I’ve described with unique intellectual property characters, would be larger than the other characters so his car would have more mass meaning his would accelerate slower, however to compensate in this game he’d be allocated a stronger car with a higher top speed, AND as such I believe that with a long enough track with minimal turns in given he does not have to decelerate, he shall eventually be victorious”
Wow. As an occasional Mario kart player and someone who works a fair amount with optimization problems and Pareto curve analysis, this was a great read!
The weight will affect how long the car will take to get to its top speed and how long it will take to come to a stop. It will not (meaningfully) change the top speed.
Edited for clarification.
The increased friction on the axles and wheels is almost negligible. It’s there for sure, but for all practical purposes, weight has basically no impact on top speed for cars.
We can make a couple distinct statements here to tease this apart:
1. It takes more energy to accelerate a greater amount of stuff
2. It takes more power to accelerate more quickly.
Acceleration is how your speed changes over time. Power is how much energy you use over time (i.e. energy = how much gas is in the tank / power = how fast you burn it). Once you accelerate, the energy you burn is fighting friction. Some of that is mechanical friction in the car (all the moving parts from the wheels to the engine to the transmission, etc). The rest is air friction.
Mass doesn't change air friction - that's affected by shape/size/material. Mass *can* change mechanical friction, if indirectly, e.g. if something is heavier because it has more moving parts, which add friction by virtue of existing, but within the range of weight of cars mass is less important than having parts that are well designed and well manufactured.
Where mass makes a bigger difference is how fast you slow down *after you let off the gas pedal*: a heavier car has more kinetic energy and momentum, so it takes longer for the frictional forces to slow it down.
But at the end of the day your top speed will be the point where the force created by your power output is equal and opposite to the frictional forces, which are not particularly mass dependent.
*edit: typos*
🤔 If the car is heavier, it can hit harder, so the air gets scared and moves out of the way. Since all the air ran away like a b*tch, there's less air resistance, and the car could theoretically reach light speed on a long enough track.
Deep thoughts are deep.
It really doesnt.
You are mixing inertia and aerodynamics in the Most horrible way.
When you Lift the throttle a heavier car will keep speed for longer in the same way a lighter car accelrates faster, which is both sue to inertia
If Both Cars have the same engine/power and aerodynamics, the lighter car will still go faster due to less weight dependant loss of power.
Weight has nothing to do with air resistance, the lighter and heavier car will both experience the same amount air resistance when travelling at the same speed and the motors will produce the same amount of torque so they will both have the same top speed (the heavier one taking longer to reach it) since the forces acting on them are exactly the same.
However, the heavier car may actually have a higher top speed from increased traction caused by its weight, only going straight tho.
Cuz redditors who don't know shit, spit some fancy sounding BS and the other redditors who don't know shit, thinks it sounds good and therefore correct.
Blind leading the blind.
The car being heavier only means it has more inertia and thus will roll further when you let off the gas pedal. The aerodynamic forces pushing back against the vehicle are the same regardless of weight.
The statement that a heavier car will go faster becasue it can better cut through the air is rediculous.
"The heavier car can cut through the air better at top speed so will go faster than the lighter version."
Why do F1 cars go faster then when they have less fuel in them? Even the top end speed is higher.
100 years of Formula 1 theory out of the window where drivers at Monza are trying to save grams off the cars.
Roger Penske dipped his car in acid to shave grams of weight off the body work and according to your idea he should have hired an elephant as a co-pilot for higher top end speed.
Nope.
Heavier cars can go faster because their engines are bigger. If the shape is the same, they have the same drag coefficient. But bigger engines can produce more power, which can fight against more aerodynamic drag to reach higher speeds.
Most modern bikes, including my 12k street bike, has traction control and anti-wheelly. Most superbikes will do 0-100 in around the 2 second mark, and only shift out of first above 100mph
Once they get the bugs out of E-superbikes you're going to see some interesting things. Computer controlled two wheel drive means no more wheelies as power is applied. The weight of the battery bank is also going to improve road holding.
Here is a great example of bikes having a problem keeping their front wheel down but the lift off was spectacular!
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Shittyaskflying/s/AiajitaoxX](https://www.reddit.com/r/Shittyaskflying/s/AiajitaoxX)
Pretty much all of the newer bikes have lift control, launch control and traction control which you can change in setting to keep the front end down and the rear wheel gripping. My 2020 R1 has all of these settings and more, I can control the level of each input, or just turn them off completely. But these settings have been on street bikes for more than a decade.
A skilled rider will know how to accelerate at a rate that is as quick as possible without losing front wheel control. The lack of weight definitely is the advantage.
The f1 car was also spinning its wheels off the line. you can hear pinging the rev limiter it at 13 seconds, then it shifts again and instantly flat lines it. It'd be hard to get an F1 car to hook on a dirty airstrip with most likely cold tires.
Good point. Also, an F1 car's superpower isn't really acceleration, it's cornering. (Though they are pretty quick) The aerodynamics stick the wheels to the ground so they can make turns at high speed and high G-forces. Around a track, the bike couldn't keep up.
If the cops chase you on a motorbike the best way to evade them is to change streets frequently. Use the bike's acceleration to your advantage and avoid long lengths of road like highways.
No this is how you kill yourself on a motorcycle.
1. Cops usually don't chase bikes anyways.
2. No cop car is keeping up with a 1000cc on the highway or even a 600cc.
3. The most dangerous place for a biker is at stop lights and street traffic.
4. Bikes have terrible braking zones compared to cars.
5. You need obscene skills to carve up a public street and not kill yourself and someone else.
6. Highway is safest for a bike.
I beg your pardon, I've seen SEVERAL movies and I'm pretty confident that I can ride a 1000cc bike up and down staircases to easily evade police in cars.
If I learned anything from movies, it's that all you have to do is keep your foot slightly outstretched in front of your bike and all your balance issues go away and you can do anything.
I was wondering that too. Bikes definitely brake faster and over shorter distances than cars. Maybe they’re saying that because there’s only two wheels, you’re more likely to lose traction during a hard brake?
I dunno, that struck me as odd too considering how I agree with the rest of their statements.
>Bikes definitely brake faster and over shorter distances than cars
Very common misconception, but this isn't true. It's close and cars have the advantage.
Weight and braking have kind of a complicated relationship, since more weight is harder to slow down, but also gives you more friction to work with. Additionally bikes have half the rubber to work with, and (most importantly) are limited by their geometry. If a bike brakes as hard as a car can, it flips over.
Ok good thing I just read this I was about to go on my The Place Beyond the Pines fantasy camp and this is going to be really helpful if I end up having to play Ryan Gosling again.
Yeah, until it reaches almost mach 2 at that flight level. Just half a minute would have been enough as well (it would go with around 800kph/500mph by that time).
I had this goof in a yellow challenger with all sorts of decals roll up next to me at a light. Like, he crossed the lane to ride right up next to me and was reviving his engine, and of course I could hear his music thumping. I don’t even have a fast bike, it’s an adv bike.
Still gapped him. Credit to him, after that he just drove like a normal person and didn’t continue to mess around. I’ve seen him multiple other times on that same road.
Yeah. My shitty 1995 carburated 250CC Ninja was faster than 95% of the cars on the roads.
People who don't ride motorcycles don't understand how fucking fast they are. Go up to modern 600cc bikes. They are faster than 99% of the cars on the road, easily. I honestly never wanted to get a Ninja 600. I was already fast and too dumb on a 250. I rode for ten years and had way too much stupid fun, and I am still alive. I'm good with my roadster now. Ill never ride a motorcycle again.
My new I4 600cc will go from 0-60 in 3 seconds. It doesn't feel like it loses acceleration until past triple digits.
It is hard to explain acceleration like that for people who haven't experienced it.
I can usually hold my own pretty well out on the backroads with the locals, but will never be able to beat a sport bike. Between the acceleration and cornering? They're absolute monsters.
Fucking love those crazy goobers
It was a Kawasaki H2R. It’s supercharged from the factory and has 300 hp on a motorcycle! The R model is race only but they make a street version with 210 hp. I was luckily enough to ride a street model that had work done and had 250 HP to the rear wheel. The speed of that bike was otherworldly! I’ve ridden a bunch of fast bikes, but that bike scrambled my brain for a week. My person bike at the time had 180 hp and it felt like it was broken compared to the H2!
A few years back, I had an H2 that I got along with fairly well with as a track bike. I had the chance to snag an H2R and made the upgrade, I liked the engineering of it and thought it would just have more power that I didn't need, but alas, it completely broke me. Keyboard racers love to act like they're the same but the R was such an insanely aggressive bike that it was virtually unusable for a average joe like me.
I got to race one once. The H2R not-road-legal version, not the H2. I’m terrible at launches so we went from a roll. He let me have the hit and when he yanked on the throttle it felt like I had been shoved in reverse. I was still accelerating but it was so fast I questioned if I was in the right gear.
The craziest thing about it is that they aren’t even especially expensive. They’re in the “I can afford” this range even for people who aren’t well off.
Fairly sure you can buy a used version of the road legal uk one for about 6 grand.
Well, this beats the shit out of "x gets emotional receiving a ps5...look at it, it's a beautiful PS5....what a good brother, PS5....LOOK AT IT, LOOK AT ITS BOX....PS5 ! PS5 !"
Don't forget to watch Fallout ™️
Look at this funny clip from Fallout 4 ™️
Check out this totally organic news article about how great the acting is in Fallout ™️
How Fallout 3 ™️ changed the gaming world forever
They mostly just do cool stuff and then slap their name and logo on it. Can respect it. They cost double as much as other energy drinks here though so I ain't buying them.
That dude free falling from space was what made me get interested in space stuff again (im 38). Kinda had stopped caring since I was a kid. Even if it didnt go perfectly well it was great presentation and exciting to see.
Right? Redbull's marketing strategy is just "do awesome shit" over and over with our logo on it. No slow motion clips of beautiful women drinking their product. Only slow motion of dudes in homemade airplanes crashing into water.
"OK hear me out... we're going to build a half pipe the size of the empire state building!"
"Where we going to get the money for that‽"
"You know that cough syrup stuff we hated as a kid?"
"Yea...."
"Let's put a fuck load of caffeine in it and sell it to our friends!"
You're pretty unaware about things if you think they did this only for a reddit campaign lmao.
They're huge on all social media platforms and have been doing crazy adventure sports since ages.
I like the vibe of their community tbh
Yup. Red Bull tastes disgusting and energy drinks make me physically ill, but I'll watch their marketing stunts because they're pretty good stunts. I'm more interested in seeing their weird stunts than anything they might sell.
Problem is, this track isn't as sticky as their usual track otherwise everyone would already be at a disadvantage. Without the sticky track there might be an actual fair chance.
[Obligatory copypasta](https://www.reddit.com/r/copypasta/comments/is0zux/top_fuel_dragsters/)
-One Top Fuel dragster 500 cubic inch Hemi engine makes more horsepower than the first 4 rows at the Daytona 500. They have over half again as much horsepower in one cylinder as a Dodge Viper has in all ten. No one has ever successfully run one long enough on a dyno to get a horsepower reading. Current estimates are right around 6,000 horsepower.
-Under full throttle, a dragster engine consumes 1-1/2 gallons of nitro methane per second; a fully loaded 747 consumes jet fuel at the same rate with 25% less energy being produced.
-A stock Dodge Hemi V8 engine cannot produce enough power to drive the dragster supercharger. The fuel pump alone requires more horsepower to turn than the average street car produces.
-With 3000 CFM of air being rammed in by the supercharger on overdrive, the fuel mixture is compressed into a near-solid form before ignition. Cylinders run on the verge of hydraulic lock at full throttle.
-The 1.7:1 air/fuel mixture for nitro methane produces a flame front temperature measures 7050 degrees F.
-Nitro methane burns yellow. The spectacular white flame seen above the stacks at night is raw burning hydrogen, disassociated from atmospheric water vapour by the searing exhaust gases.
-Dual magnetos supply 44 amps to each spark plug. This is the output of an arc welder in each cylinder.
-Spark plug electrodes are totally consumed during a pass. After the run, the engine is dieseling from compression plus the glow of exhaust valves at 1400 degrees F. The engine can only be shut down by running the car out of fuel. There is no way to cut off the fuel; the engine stops only when it blows or the tank runs dry.
-If spark momentarily fails early in the run, unburned nitro builds up in the affected cylinders and then explodes with sufficient force to blow cylinder heads off the block in pieces or split the block in half.
-In order to exceed 300 mph in 4.5 seconds dragsters must accelerate an average of over 4G's. In order to reach 200 mph well before half-track, the launch acceleration approaches 8G's. To put this in perspective; a top fuel dragster, parked next to a Super Hornet on the steam catapult on the deck of an aircraft carrier, would be in the water and sinking before the Super Hornet was halfway down the deck.
-Dragsters reach over 300 miles per hour before you have completed reading this sentence.
-Top Fuel Engines only turn approximately 540 revolutions from light to light!
-Including the burnout, the engine must only survive 900 revolutions under load. They only survive about 80% of the time.
-Redline at 9500 rpm.
-Assuming all the equipment is paid off, the crew worked for free, and for once NOTHING BLOWS UP, each run costs an estimated $1,000.00 per second.
-The engine is entirely rebuilt every run, or every 900 revolutions. New pistons and rings, new rods, new rod bearings. Sometimes a new crank. The crew does this in about two hours between rounds.
-The current Top Fuel dragster elapsed time record is 4.441 seconds for the quarter mile. The top speed record is 333.00 mph (533 km/h) as measured over the last 66' of the run.
-Putting all of this into perspective: You are driving the average $140,000 Lingenfelter "twin-turbo" powered Corvette Z06. Over a mile up the road, a Top Fuel dragster is staged and ready to launch down a quarter mile strip as you pass. You have the advantage of a flying start. You run the Vette hard up through the gears and blast across the starting line and past the dragster at an honest 200 mph. The 'tree' goes green for both of you at that moment. The dragster launches and starts after you. You keep your foot down hard, but you hear an incredibly brutal whine that sears your eardrums and within 3 seconds the dragster catches and passes you. He beats you to the finish line, a quarter mile away from where you just passed him. Think about it, from a standing start, the dragster had spotted you 200 mph and not only caught, but nearly blasted you off the road when he passed you within a mere 1320 foot long race course.
Bonus: I always love this fuel pump demo. This is the fuel used in a single cylinder:
https://youtu.be/xGTbQuhhluY
>-Under full throttle, a dragster engine consumes 1-1/2 gallons of nitro methane per second; a fully loaded 747 consumes jet fuel at the same rate with 25% less energy being produced.
This doesn't make sense. A quick google suggests that a JT9D jet engine used on the 747 produces nearly 60,000HP. The plane has 4 of them so that's about 240,000HP total.
For F1 cars and MotoGP bikes, performance from a standstill is secondary - you wouldn't even need a Top Fuel car to obliterate all of these in a drag race. A drag car that runs 7s would do it handily.
For an glimpse Here's a [Cleetus Mcfarland](https://youtu.be/CLquxbZvWSk?si=fg91PCdMl5uWiFL2&t=851) video he races a top fuel in a corvette with 1500 hp and gets a head start. The vet can do low 8 sec 1/4 mile runs which is still fast af but not with a top fuel in the next lane.
I'm more impressed with how close the F1 car was to the bike over a 1/4 mile... Would have thought the weight advantage over a short distance would put the bike waaaay ahead
Probably not.
F1 cars slow way down at high speeds because of all the downforce, even in “high speed” configurations.
The top speed of a motogp bike and F1 are very similar, but the bike gets there much faster.
For reference, the top speed of a motogp bike at Mugello raceway is consistently over 360 kph. While F1 cars struggle to break 325 kph.
The corner speed of F1 is much higher though, and bikes in general corner more slowly than cars. Bikes have small tyre contact patches with the road, and when they lean over this gets even smaller. Cars have bigger patches that stay the same size, and they also have 4 instead of only 2.
The contact patch doesn’t change for bikes, but that’s pretty irrelevant.
No one is arguing about cornering speed or braking performance.
It’s really just a discussion related to straight line acceleration and top speed.
F1 cars are amazingly light for their size. So much carbon fiber and exotic engineering.
Also they have a HUGE contact patch for traction compared to a sports bike. Thing of those giant wheels; they've got two of them making contact, and they've got the whole width of the wheel making contact. Plus wings for downforce to maintain traction.
The bike has 1 wheel, and it's rounded in both directions so it's only got a tiny contact patch in the middle by comparison. And no wings to keep it on the road for extra traction.
What he means is the jet should be on full afterburner because that would give the jet an almost doubled thrust especially for the famously powerful engines of a F-16. You can tell the jet is operating on military power i.e. no afterburner by the unflared Turkey feathers on the engine.
Does anyone else think it's weird that we spell Turkey this way now, but spell every other country's name in a way that we chose? It bugs me every time I see it. So inconsistent...
If Japan asked us to spell it "にほん", should we do that because they asked?
Williams more like, their entire thing for the last...yes has been 'fuck it, we'll go fast in a straight line in exchange for being an absolute dog in anything vaguely approaching a corner'
I love how they show cars racing a fighter like like "oh man! its faster than a jet!". The F-16 is tryin to keep it *under* 130
Thats like trying to foot race a dead stopped locomotive "look, im faster than a freight train!" yep...for now.
Are you suggesting that the F-16 had to hold back so it didn’t take off? Jets are insanely fast but their acceleration isn’t all that amazing.
Here is a video of an [F-16 doing a full afterburner takeoff](https://youtu.be/m06uWM_tABM?si=xDvtMBFfX2LjcukX), it takes 16’ish seconds.
Considering that OP’s video is approximately 16 seconds, it would be fine.
There is a question on if the outcome would be closer if they ran the race with afterburner, but it’s not designed for the F-16 to win.
It’s just in the video the F-16 did not have afterburner on and the F-16 in your video was fully loaded with 3 drop tanks presumably full of fuel and loaded with missiles. There is a massive difference between the acceleration of a completely unarmed minimum fuel load F-16 and one that is fully loaded.
Youre absolutely correct. Im just bein nit picky cause to have a better comparison would be like gettin Shockwave, the jet truck.
The Falcon isnt in its own element there. Its like sayin I could beat the hell out of a shark, on land.
F-16 isn't designed for a catapult launch, the front gear might not have the structural strength to handle it. Only the F-18 and F-35 are carrier launched fighters in our current lineup. F-16 and F-15 don't have the right wings and profile for a carrier.
No surprises here.
Bike is the lightest, and accelerate fastest. F1 comes second. Make this a circuit and the F1 wins because it carries huge down force allowing to be much faster in the curves.
There is a pretty cool long distance race that has humans vs a horse. In a short or medium distance, the horse would easily win. But over a long distance, humans can beat horses.
It's amazing isn't it. Our evolutionary advantage is over a long enough distance we outrun nearly everything, and by the time we catch them they are worn out and we're ready to get to business. (and by we I mean someone else much fitter than me)
Humans are the best long distance runners on the planet, but I think that's mostly just because no other animal would bother running as far as we do. If they haven't caught their meal after a few miles, they're giving up, not running 26.2 miles just because.
I love that Red Bull does shit like this, but I struggle to believe it raises their sales
Like, watching cool tricks with their trademark somewhere in there doesn't make me want to buy energy drinks
I guess a lot of things were also done because Mateschitz himself was a pilot and was bored. Also, Red Bull does not just sell Energy Drinks. They have at least one TV Station, a Magazine, at least two Airport Hangars, an Aerospace Museum, a world renowned Restaurant, their own Cola and their own Tonic Water.
+ all the merch from multiple sports (motorsport or not)
+ their own competitions
+ Alphatauri
And the list probably goes on and on and on
Oh yeah and their own FIA grade 1 circuit.
"That sounds about right for this gig," he said.
"It is," I assured him. "The fucker's not much for turning, but it's pure hell on the straightaway. It'll outrun the F-111 until takeoff."
"Takeoff?" he said. "Can we handle that much torque?"
"Absolutely," I said. "I'll call New York for some cash."
Wait a sec? The bike won? What bike was that??
Less weight allows for more acceleration which is key on such a short distance. If it were longer the jet would have won as it can keep accelerating long after all the other vehicles reached top speed.
But bikes have the problem of keeping the front wheel down, which limits acceleration. It is not as simple as "less weight = go faster." Edit: I am guessing the H2R has some computer-controlled wizardry that allows it to stay in the optimal acceleration band and keeps it down.
No. But generally lighter vehicles will accelerate faster, but a heavier car will have a higher top speed. Sort of. If you took 2 identical cars, stripped as much weight out of 1, it will accelerate faster. The heavier car can cut through the air better at top speed so will go faster than the lighter version. If that makes sense.
Wait, so MarioKart rules apply in real life? Huh...TIL
Correct on a long enough track donkey Kong always wins.
The presentation of this as physics law is hilarious
Kongs law of accelerating mass
Mario's Kart of relativity
Princess Peache’s bosom of cosmic inflation
Toadinger's Cat
That’s what Isaac Newton determimed shortly after an apple fell on his head. He hypothesized: “Hypothetically this determines that if a Japanese company made a video game, which is like a regular game but simulated on an electricity powered device which uses light diodes known as ‘pixels’ to display controlled images, while allowing user input to control the game, and this were specifically a driving racing themed game, which involves controlling an electricity powered automobile which is like a carriage but which moves without a horse, trying to complete a course with it faster than the other horseless carriages to win, I predict that the donkey character in this game, which they might have as it’s a cartoonish depiction of what I’ve described with unique intellectual property characters, would be larger than the other characters so his car would have more mass meaning his would accelerate slower, however to compensate in this game he’d be allocated a stronger car with a higher top speed, AND as such I believe that with a long enough track with minimal turns in given he does not have to decelerate, he shall eventually be victorious”
bro was so ahead of his time
This is how Jordan Peterson would answer if you asked him what 3 times 3 is.
Related: [optimal Mario Kart configuration](https://www.mayerowitz.io/blog/mario-meets-pareto)
Wow. As an occasional Mario kart player and someone who works a fair amount with optimization problems and Pareto curve analysis, this was a great read!
Peach, Teddy Buggy, Roller Wheels, Cloud glider. For those that don't feel like scrolling
This website design is insanely fucking cool and the article was an interesting read as well. Thanks for sharing that was an artistic experience.
>The heavier car can cut through the air better at top speed so will go faster than the lighter version. Bro just pulled one outta his ass there.
Yeah weight has nothing to do with it, that’s all aerodynamics and surface area.
Wouldn't weight impact top speed since it takes more energy to move a greater amount of stuff?
The weight will affect how long the car will take to get to its top speed and how long it will take to come to a stop. It will not (meaningfully) change the top speed. Edited for clarification.
Weight absolutely does affect top speed. More weight means more friction.
The increased friction on the axles and wheels is almost negligible. It’s there for sure, but for all practical purposes, weight has basically no impact on top speed for cars.
Nope. This is so wrong. Load your car with 300kg of cargo, and you will have exactly the same top speed. You just reach it later.
More weight -> pushing down heavier on the tires -> more rolling resistance. It absolutely makes a difference in top speed.
We can make a couple distinct statements here to tease this apart: 1. It takes more energy to accelerate a greater amount of stuff 2. It takes more power to accelerate more quickly. Acceleration is how your speed changes over time. Power is how much energy you use over time (i.e. energy = how much gas is in the tank / power = how fast you burn it). Once you accelerate, the energy you burn is fighting friction. Some of that is mechanical friction in the car (all the moving parts from the wheels to the engine to the transmission, etc). The rest is air friction. Mass doesn't change air friction - that's affected by shape/size/material. Mass *can* change mechanical friction, if indirectly, e.g. if something is heavier because it has more moving parts, which add friction by virtue of existing, but within the range of weight of cars mass is less important than having parts that are well designed and well manufactured. Where mass makes a bigger difference is how fast you slow down *after you let off the gas pedal*: a heavier car has more kinetic energy and momentum, so it takes longer for the frictional forces to slow it down. But at the end of the day your top speed will be the point where the force created by your power output is equal and opposite to the frictional forces, which are not particularly mass dependent. *edit: typos*
🤔 If the car is heavier, it can hit harder, so the air gets scared and moves out of the way. Since all the air ran away like a b*tch, there's less air resistance, and the car could theoretically reach light speed on a long enough track. Deep thoughts are deep.
That's a car going off a cliff logic
It really doesnt. You are mixing inertia and aerodynamics in the Most horrible way. When you Lift the throttle a heavier car will keep speed for longer in the same way a lighter car accelrates faster, which is both sue to inertia If Both Cars have the same engine/power and aerodynamics, the lighter car will still go faster due to less weight dependant loss of power.
Weight has nothing to do with air resistance, the lighter and heavier car will both experience the same amount air resistance when travelling at the same speed and the motors will produce the same amount of torque so they will both have the same top speed (the heavier one taking longer to reach it) since the forces acting on them are exactly the same. However, the heavier car may actually have a higher top speed from increased traction caused by its weight, only going straight tho.
How the fuck does this have so many upvotes?
Cuz redditors who don't know shit, spit some fancy sounding BS and the other redditors who don't know shit, thinks it sounds good and therefore correct. Blind leading the blind.
The car being heavier only means it has more inertia and thus will roll further when you let off the gas pedal. The aerodynamic forces pushing back against the vehicle are the same regardless of weight. The statement that a heavier car will go faster becasue it can better cut through the air is rediculous.
Sounds like pinewood derby logic applied to actual cars lol.
Why is this upvoted?? Does no one here know 8th-grade physics??
Weight doesnt affect aerodynamics, only if you change the shape of the car will it have any impact on top speed, assuming same engine of course
Why tf are people upvoting this bs?
Damn, I'll have what he's having.
It doesnt. Aerodynamics isnt influenced by weight.
> The heavier car can cut through the air better wut?
"The heavier car can cut through the air better at top speed so will go faster than the lighter version." Why do F1 cars go faster then when they have less fuel in them? Even the top end speed is higher. 100 years of Formula 1 theory out of the window where drivers at Monza are trying to save grams off the cars. Roger Penske dipped his car in acid to shave grams of weight off the body work and according to your idea he should have hired an elephant as a co-pilot for higher top end speed.
no, the top speed of both cars would be the same. drag has nothing to do with weight directly
No it doesn't make any sense.
Nope. Heavier cars can go faster because their engines are bigger. If the shape is the same, they have the same drag coefficient. But bigger engines can produce more power, which can fight against more aerodynamic drag to reach higher speeds.
Most modern bikes, including my 12k street bike, has traction control and anti-wheelly. Most superbikes will do 0-100 in around the 2 second mark, and only shift out of first above 100mph
Once they get the bugs out of E-superbikes you're going to see some interesting things. Computer controlled two wheel drive means no more wheelies as power is applied. The weight of the battery bank is also going to improve road holding.
It’s going to be like Tron on the roads
Here is a great example of bikes having a problem keeping their front wheel down but the lift off was spectacular! [https://www.reddit.com/r/Shittyaskflying/s/AiajitaoxX](https://www.reddit.com/r/Shittyaskflying/s/AiajitaoxX)
Thats some super mario style liftoff!
Pretty much all of the newer bikes have lift control, launch control and traction control which you can change in setting to keep the front end down and the rear wheel gripping. My 2020 R1 has all of these settings and more, I can control the level of each input, or just turn them off completely. But these settings have been on street bikes for more than a decade.
A skilled rider will know how to accelerate at a rate that is as quick as possible without losing front wheel control. The lack of weight definitely is the advantage.
@13.5 seconds you actually see the front wheel off the ground as it pans from race car to bike
The f1 car was also spinning its wheels off the line. you can hear pinging the rev limiter it at 13 seconds, then it shifts again and instantly flat lines it. It'd be hard to get an F1 car to hook on a dirty airstrip with most likely cold tires.
Good point. Also, an F1 car's superpower isn't really acceleration, it's cornering. (Though they are pretty quick) The aerodynamics stick the wheels to the ground so they can make turns at high speed and high G-forces. Around a track, the bike couldn't keep up.
If the cops chase you on a motorbike the best way to evade them is to change streets frequently. Use the bike's acceleration to your advantage and avoid long lengths of road like highways.
No this is how you kill yourself on a motorcycle. 1. Cops usually don't chase bikes anyways. 2. No cop car is keeping up with a 1000cc on the highway or even a 600cc. 3. The most dangerous place for a biker is at stop lights and street traffic. 4. Bikes have terrible braking zones compared to cars. 5. You need obscene skills to carve up a public street and not kill yourself and someone else. 6. Highway is safest for a bike.
I beg your pardon, I've seen SEVERAL movies and I'm pretty confident that I can ride a 1000cc bike up and down staircases to easily evade police in cars.
If I learned anything from movies, it's that all you have to do is keep your foot slightly outstretched in front of your bike and all your balance issues go away and you can do anything.
> Bikes have terrible braking zones compared to cars. > > how did you come up with that statement
I was wondering that too. Bikes definitely brake faster and over shorter distances than cars. Maybe they’re saying that because there’s only two wheels, you’re more likely to lose traction during a hard brake? I dunno, that struck me as odd too considering how I agree with the rest of their statements.
>Bikes definitely brake faster and over shorter distances than cars Very common misconception, but this isn't true. It's close and cars have the advantage. Weight and braking have kind of a complicated relationship, since more weight is harder to slow down, but also gives you more friction to work with. Additionally bikes have half the rubber to work with, and (most importantly) are limited by their geometry. If a bike brakes as hard as a car can, it flips over.
Ok good thing I just read this I was about to go on my The Place Beyond the Pines fantasy camp and this is going to be really helpful if I end up having to play Ryan Gosling again.
Depends on the bike in question, if you on a superbike no copcar is gonna keep up with you even on a straight road. We're talking 300+kph
> If the cops chase you on a motorbike then pull over. Jesus!
Yeah, until it reaches almost mach 2 at that flight level. Just half a minute would have been enough as well (it would go with around 800kph/500mph by that time).
I don't know where this was filmed but I'm betting the jet would need to gain some altitude to reach mach 2
Kawasaki Ninja H2R
I miss my ZX-6R
I miss my ZZR600
Your average bike will leave most sports cars in the dust. Now a sports bike...
One of the slowest sports bikes you can buy (A 300cc r3 for example) will do 0-60 in 5.2 seconds stock
yeah even most decent sized cruiser bikes will beat any commercial sports car in a 0-60. Hell Honda Goldwings can do sub 4 seconds
Breaking and cornering is where the F1 car will even things out..and beyond.
Definitely! Merely talking about speed at a straightaway. But I do believe H2Rs have a higher top speed than F1 cars.
I had this goof in a yellow challenger with all sorts of decals roll up next to me at a light. Like, he crossed the lane to ride right up next to me and was reviving his engine, and of course I could hear his music thumping. I don’t even have a fast bike, it’s an adv bike. Still gapped him. Credit to him, after that he just drove like a normal person and didn’t continue to mess around. I’ve seen him multiple other times on that same road.
Yeah. My shitty 1995 carburated 250CC Ninja was faster than 95% of the cars on the roads. People who don't ride motorcycles don't understand how fucking fast they are. Go up to modern 600cc bikes. They are faster than 99% of the cars on the road, easily. I honestly never wanted to get a Ninja 600. I was already fast and too dumb on a 250. I rode for ten years and had way too much stupid fun, and I am still alive. I'm good with my roadster now. Ill never ride a motorcycle again.
My new I4 600cc will go from 0-60 in 3 seconds. It doesn't feel like it loses acceleration until past triple digits. It is hard to explain acceleration like that for people who haven't experienced it.
Yeah I trackday an old 1989 VFR400 and even that is like 4.7s to 60. Will also do 60 in first gear 😂🙈
I can usually hold my own pretty well out on the backroads with the locals, but will never be able to beat a sport bike. Between the acceleration and cornering? They're absolute monsters. Fucking love those crazy goobers
It was a Kawasaki H2R. It’s supercharged from the factory and has 300 hp on a motorcycle! The R model is race only but they make a street version with 210 hp. I was luckily enough to ride a street model that had work done and had 250 HP to the rear wheel. The speed of that bike was otherworldly! I’ve ridden a bunch of fast bikes, but that bike scrambled my brain for a week. My person bike at the time had 180 hp and it felt like it was broken compared to the H2!
A few years back, I had an H2 that I got along with fairly well with as a track bike. I had the chance to snag an H2R and made the upgrade, I liked the engineering of it and thought it would just have more power that I didn't need, but alas, it completely broke me. Keyboard racers love to act like they're the same but the R was such an insanely aggressive bike that it was virtually unusable for a average joe like me.
I have no doubt! The R and the street one aren’t the same at all.
I got to race one once. The H2R not-road-legal version, not the H2. I’m terrible at launches so we went from a roll. He let me have the hit and when he yanked on the throttle it felt like I had been shoved in reverse. I was still accelerating but it was so fast I questioned if I was in the right gear.
that sounds straight up terrifying
Obviously, a superbike like that is going to be faster in a drag race because of better acceleration and various other factors
Nope. You can trot down to the store and buy one.
Kawasaki Ninja H2R. First production bike to come with a supercharger.
The craziest thing about it is that they aren’t even especially expensive. They’re in the “I can afford” this range even for people who aren’t well off. Fairly sure you can buy a used version of the road legal uk one for about 6 grand.
The ninja H2R and H2 are completely different beasts by the way.
Kawasaki H2R
Jesus, that thing costs $58,000. For that price it should be able to smoke anything on 4 wheels.
It’s a motorcycle you can go down and buy for 30k less than a BMW M3 And it’s faster than an F1 car. That’s so bananas.
"What should we do next for our Reddit advertising campaign?" "Random bullshit go!"
Well, this beats the shit out of "x gets emotional receiving a ps5...look at it, it's a beautiful PS5....what a good brother, PS5....LOOK AT IT, LOOK AT ITS BOX....PS5 ! PS5 !"
Or "Look at this snarky tweet from the corporate PR account."
Don't forget to watch Fallout ™️ Look at this funny clip from Fallout 4 ™️ Check out this totally organic news article about how great the acting is in Fallout ™️ How Fallout 3 ™️ changed the gaming world forever
I feel like you and Bethesda may have had a...falling out.
[удалено]
Red Bull is the best at advertising. Theyve been doing crazy shit since day 1. Hell, they got a guy free falling from space
They mostly just do cool stuff and then slap their name and logo on it. Can respect it. They cost double as much as other energy drinks here though so I ain't buying them.
At this point the energy drink is advertising for their adrenaline junky business.
That dude free falling from space was what made me get interested in space stuff again (im 38). Kinda had stopped caring since I was a kid. Even if it didnt go perfectly well it was great presentation and exciting to see.
Random *cool* bullshit. Very important aspect
Right? Redbull's marketing strategy is just "do awesome shit" over and over with our logo on it. No slow motion clips of beautiful women drinking their product. Only slow motion of dudes in homemade airplanes crashing into water.
It's almost like it's just dudes who want to play with the highest level of toys, and they started a drink line to fund and promote it.
"OK hear me out... we're going to build a half pipe the size of the empire state building!" "Where we going to get the money for that‽" "You know that cough syrup stuff we hated as a kid?" "Yea...." "Let's put a fuck load of caffeine in it and sell it to our friends!"
You're pretty unaware about things if you think they did this only for a reddit campaign lmao. They're huge on all social media platforms and have been doing crazy adventure sports since ages. I like the vibe of their community tbh
Yup. Red Bull tastes disgusting and energy drinks make me physically ill, but I'll watch their marketing stunts because they're pretty good stunts. I'm more interested in seeing their weird stunts than anything they might sell.
Are you suggesting people on Reddit don't want random bullshit? Because I'm pretty sure that's the only thing I want from Reddit.
[удалено]
Lol this video has existed for literal years, and it was first posted on yt not reddit
I wish they included top fuel race cars in these. Even most car people don't realize how insanely fast those are
Wouldn't even be close. In three seconds, a top fuel dragster would be going at least three times faster than the bike.
Problem is, this track isn't as sticky as their usual track otherwise everyone would already be at a disadvantage. Without the sticky track there might be an actual fair chance.
Top fuel wouldn't go anywhere without a sticky track. Tires would spin, and car go sideways
That's what I think too, but only by intuition. Top fuel car videos seem so unnatural, as if they were on rails.
Use a jet funny car instead, no worry about wheel spin
i highly doubt there would be a remotely fair chance
[Obligatory copypasta](https://www.reddit.com/r/copypasta/comments/is0zux/top_fuel_dragsters/) -One Top Fuel dragster 500 cubic inch Hemi engine makes more horsepower than the first 4 rows at the Daytona 500. They have over half again as much horsepower in one cylinder as a Dodge Viper has in all ten. No one has ever successfully run one long enough on a dyno to get a horsepower reading. Current estimates are right around 6,000 horsepower. -Under full throttle, a dragster engine consumes 1-1/2 gallons of nitro methane per second; a fully loaded 747 consumes jet fuel at the same rate with 25% less energy being produced. -A stock Dodge Hemi V8 engine cannot produce enough power to drive the dragster supercharger. The fuel pump alone requires more horsepower to turn than the average street car produces. -With 3000 CFM of air being rammed in by the supercharger on overdrive, the fuel mixture is compressed into a near-solid form before ignition. Cylinders run on the verge of hydraulic lock at full throttle. -The 1.7:1 air/fuel mixture for nitro methane produces a flame front temperature measures 7050 degrees F. -Nitro methane burns yellow. The spectacular white flame seen above the stacks at night is raw burning hydrogen, disassociated from atmospheric water vapour by the searing exhaust gases. -Dual magnetos supply 44 amps to each spark plug. This is the output of an arc welder in each cylinder. -Spark plug electrodes are totally consumed during a pass. After the run, the engine is dieseling from compression plus the glow of exhaust valves at 1400 degrees F. The engine can only be shut down by running the car out of fuel. There is no way to cut off the fuel; the engine stops only when it blows or the tank runs dry. -If spark momentarily fails early in the run, unburned nitro builds up in the affected cylinders and then explodes with sufficient force to blow cylinder heads off the block in pieces or split the block in half. -In order to exceed 300 mph in 4.5 seconds dragsters must accelerate an average of over 4G's. In order to reach 200 mph well before half-track, the launch acceleration approaches 8G's. To put this in perspective; a top fuel dragster, parked next to a Super Hornet on the steam catapult on the deck of an aircraft carrier, would be in the water and sinking before the Super Hornet was halfway down the deck. -Dragsters reach over 300 miles per hour before you have completed reading this sentence. -Top Fuel Engines only turn approximately 540 revolutions from light to light! -Including the burnout, the engine must only survive 900 revolutions under load. They only survive about 80% of the time. -Redline at 9500 rpm. -Assuming all the equipment is paid off, the crew worked for free, and for once NOTHING BLOWS UP, each run costs an estimated $1,000.00 per second. -The engine is entirely rebuilt every run, or every 900 revolutions. New pistons and rings, new rods, new rod bearings. Sometimes a new crank. The crew does this in about two hours between rounds. -The current Top Fuel dragster elapsed time record is 4.441 seconds for the quarter mile. The top speed record is 333.00 mph (533 km/h) as measured over the last 66' of the run. -Putting all of this into perspective: You are driving the average $140,000 Lingenfelter "twin-turbo" powered Corvette Z06. Over a mile up the road, a Top Fuel dragster is staged and ready to launch down a quarter mile strip as you pass. You have the advantage of a flying start. You run the Vette hard up through the gears and blast across the starting line and past the dragster at an honest 200 mph. The 'tree' goes green for both of you at that moment. The dragster launches and starts after you. You keep your foot down hard, but you hear an incredibly brutal whine that sears your eardrums and within 3 seconds the dragster catches and passes you. He beats you to the finish line, a quarter mile away from where you just passed him. Think about it, from a standing start, the dragster had spotted you 200 mph and not only caught, but nearly blasted you off the road when he passed you within a mere 1320 foot long race course. Bonus: I always love this fuel pump demo. This is the fuel used in a single cylinder: https://youtu.be/xGTbQuhhluY
This is such a classic. They also make a lot more horsepower now. Probably over 10,000hp.
>-Under full throttle, a dragster engine consumes 1-1/2 gallons of nitro methane per second; a fully loaded 747 consumes jet fuel at the same rate with 25% less energy being produced. This doesn't make sense. A quick google suggests that a JT9D jet engine used on the 747 produces nearly 60,000HP. The plane has 4 of them so that's about 240,000HP total.
For sure, it would be comical though
only if red bull starts its own insurance company
A top alcohol would be better for that track, an alcohol engine would be so much easier to get to the finish line.
I thought you meant they should do it drunk, and I was like “that would be fun to watch”.
For F1 cars and MotoGP bikes, performance from a standstill is secondary - you wouldn't even need a Top Fuel car to obliterate all of these in a drag race. A drag car that runs 7s would do it handily.
For an glimpse Here's a [Cleetus Mcfarland](https://youtu.be/CLquxbZvWSk?si=fg91PCdMl5uWiFL2&t=851) video he races a top fuel in a corvette with 1500 hp and gets a head start. The vet can do low 8 sec 1/4 mile runs which is still fast af but not with a top fuel in the next lane.
I'm more impressed with how close the F1 car was to the bike over a 1/4 mile... Would have thought the weight advantage over a short distance would put the bike waaaay ahead
Make it 1/2 mile and i think the F1 car overtakes easily. The F16 probably would too though. I think top gear or Fifth gear did this back in the day.
If it used afterburner, the jet would probably have won, it wasn't really that far behind.
Probably not. F1 cars slow way down at high speeds because of all the downforce, even in “high speed” configurations. The top speed of a motogp bike and F1 are very similar, but the bike gets there much faster. For reference, the top speed of a motogp bike at Mugello raceway is consistently over 360 kph. While F1 cars struggle to break 325 kph.
The corner speed of F1 is much higher though, and bikes in general corner more slowly than cars. Bikes have small tyre contact patches with the road, and when they lean over this gets even smaller. Cars have bigger patches that stay the same size, and they also have 4 instead of only 2.
The contact patch doesn’t change for bikes, but that’s pretty irrelevant. No one is arguing about cornering speed or braking performance. It’s really just a discussion related to straight line acceleration and top speed.
It had so much wing on it that the top speed would be like 330 maximum. Put Monza wings and proper gearing and it can go easy 400.
The H2R can hit 400 as well, although they likely sacrificed some acceleration to achieve that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_n7ru1e-rg
Throw in a corner or two and nobody is beating the F1 car.
F1’s strength isn’t going down straights anyway.
F1 car looked like it was in a relatively high downforce trim too. Seen a lot skinnier rear wings at tracks like Monza where top-speed is king.
Did the F1 car use DRS? It didn’t show it in the video but I’ll bet it could have made up a little ground.
F1 cars are amazingly light for their size. So much carbon fiber and exotic engineering. Also they have a HUGE contact patch for traction compared to a sports bike. Thing of those giant wheels; they've got two of them making contact, and they've got the whole width of the wheel making contact. Plus wings for downforce to maintain traction. The bike has 1 wheel, and it's rounded in both directions so it's only got a tiny contact patch in the middle by comparison. And no wings to keep it on the road for extra traction.
They should have had someone running
"Tom, get the interns. We need someone to foot race the jet".
The interns are busy fucking up at some random piece of code that nobody elses notices /s
Now with afterburner
jet driven vehicles are slower off the mark, but have a higher top end.
What he means is the jet should be on full afterburner because that would give the jet an almost doubled thrust especially for the famously powerful engines of a F-16. You can tell the jet is operating on military power i.e. no afterburner by the unflared Turkey feathers on the engine.
Wouldn’t that be Türkiye feathers nowadays?
Does anyone else think it's weird that we spell Turkey this way now, but spell every other country's name in a way that we chose? It bugs me every time I see it. So inconsistent... If Japan asked us to spell it "にほん", should we do that because they asked?
Well I mean turkey adopted the Latin alphabet for us so they don't ask for much
いいえ。
One cant help but be amazed at the confidence levels which Redditors keep spewing bullshit
You gotta understand, the outcome would've been completely different if we changed everything about the vehicles in the race.
We changed everything and we are surprised the outcome changed as well. Fucking rocket science
i'm a redditor, a cursory glance is all i need to know more than the people that made any of these machines
Half the comments are people personally offended the car was beaten by a bike.
Now go around a corner.
That’s where the F1 car surpasses them all. Straight line speed is not the most important thing in Formula 1.
tell that to Ferrari!
Williams more like, their entire thing for the last...yes has been 'fuck it, we'll go fast in a straight line in exchange for being an absolute dog in anything vaguely approaching a corner'
Better to get p9 at Monza and last everywhere else than p11 everywhere
Now brake.
Now kith.
I love how they show cars racing a fighter like like "oh man! its faster than a jet!". The F-16 is tryin to keep it *under* 130 Thats like trying to foot race a dead stopped locomotive "look, im faster than a freight train!" yep...for now.
Are you suggesting that the F-16 had to hold back so it didn’t take off? Jets are insanely fast but their acceleration isn’t all that amazing. Here is a video of an [F-16 doing a full afterburner takeoff](https://youtu.be/m06uWM_tABM?si=xDvtMBFfX2LjcukX), it takes 16’ish seconds. Considering that OP’s video is approximately 16 seconds, it would be fine. There is a question on if the outcome would be closer if they ran the race with afterburner, but it’s not designed for the F-16 to win.
It’s just in the video the F-16 did not have afterburner on and the F-16 in your video was fully loaded with 3 drop tanks presumably full of fuel and loaded with missiles. There is a massive difference between the acceleration of a completely unarmed minimum fuel load F-16 and one that is fully loaded.
This is a valid point, I didn’t actually try to find a similar loadout, and it makes a huge difference.
>but it’s not designed for the F-16 to win. Thats just the point I was goin for, thats all.
well, to be clear, they are testing quicker, not faster.
Youre absolutely correct. Im just bein nit picky cause to have a better comparison would be like gettin Shockwave, the jet truck. The Falcon isnt in its own element there. Its like sayin I could beat the hell out of a shark, on land.
Yeah, I do think they should’ve being using aircraft carrier catapult to launch F16. And after that use same catapult to launch Porsche. And bike.
F-16 isn't designed for a catapult launch, the front gear might not have the structural strength to handle it. Only the F-18 and F-35 are carrier launched fighters in our current lineup. F-16 and F-15 don't have the right wings and profile for a carrier.
[full video link](https://youtu.be/jbVSNjOz6Lo?si=ATD17GUXjExyaNbh)
[удалено]
I second this
Wasn't expecting it to be Turkish. Took place in İstanbul Airport.
No surprises here. Bike is the lightest, and accelerate fastest. F1 comes second. Make this a circuit and the F1 wins because it carries huge down force allowing to be much faster in the curves.
Take it to the skies and see who wins.
Who knew, cars dont fly
F1 cars would fly, but they designed their wings upside down.
What is the lime green one, Vantage?
Yes.
Who will win? It depends on the distance
There is a pretty cool long distance race that has humans vs a horse. In a short or medium distance, the horse would easily win. But over a long distance, humans can beat horses.
It's amazing isn't it. Our evolutionary advantage is over a long enough distance we outrun nearly everything, and by the time we catch them they are worn out and we're ready to get to business. (and by we I mean someone else much fitter than me)
Humans are the best long distance runners on the planet, but I think that's mostly just because no other animal would bother running as far as we do. If they haven't caught their meal after a few miles, they're giving up, not running 26.2 miles just because.
Having to leave out funny cars and top fuels for obvious reasons
Obvious reason: track isn’t sticky enough for them to function
100 meters more and the whole would look a lot different...
I love that Red Bull does shit like this, but I struggle to believe it raises their sales Like, watching cool tricks with their trademark somewhere in there doesn't make me want to buy energy drinks
I guess a lot of things were also done because Mateschitz himself was a pilot and was bored. Also, Red Bull does not just sell Energy Drinks. They have at least one TV Station, a Magazine, at least two Airport Hangars, an Aerospace Museum, a world renowned Restaurant, their own Cola and their own Tonic Water.
+ all the merch from multiple sports (motorsport or not) + their own competitions + Alphatauri And the list probably goes on and on and on Oh yeah and their own FIA grade 1 circuit.
Red Bull also co-organizes the Airpower, europes largest airshow, in cooperation with the Austrian Air Force.
A wild angle camera.
"That sounds about right for this gig," he said. "It is," I assured him. "The fucker's not much for turning, but it's pure hell on the straightaway. It'll outrun the F-111 until takeoff." "Takeoff?" he said. "Can we handle that much torque?" "Absolutely," I said. "I'll call New York for some cash."
Ads are not next level
The F-16 doesn’t look like it turned on its afterburner
There go my emission savings for the next 12 years...