Next time you pass a mate on opposite tacks at speed .......flick the tail of your board and throw some extra spray in his direction........ if it hits them in the groin ...it hurts...if it hits them in the face it hurts... but it can be fun...particularly when the water is 9deg
A high five is fun but remember your actual speed when kiting can be deceptive and you could end up smacking someone in the face ....quite hard.
As for the cars........... I would rather be in a car doing 30kph and have a head on with another car doing 30kph than hit a stationary wall at 60kph, if you have even seen car hit an immovable object at 60kph you would realise that the chance of survival is minimal. All learner / probationary drivers should witness a vehicle hitting an immovable object at 60kph if they did there would be far less mucking around on the roads....ok im off topic now
Select to expand quoteof course you would harry, doing 30 as opposed to 60 would mean half the dissipating force. i would too.
and i love a good debate, and am quite impressed by londons figures.
so surely all who believe the speeds are added are convinced by now?
if the cars collide head on and are identical, at 30, 40, 50, 60.....
it will be the exact same as hitting a solid immovable object.
quote]harry potter said...
Next time you pass a mate on opposite tacks at speed .......flick the tail of your board and throw some extra spray in his direction........ if it hits them in the groin ...it hurts...if it hits them in the face it hurts... but it can be fun...particularly when the water is 9deg
A high five is fun but remember your actual speed when kiting can be deceptive and you could end up smacking someone in the face ....quite hard.
As for the cars........... I would rather be in a car doing 30kph and have a head on with another car doing 30kph than hit a stationary wall at 60kph, if you have even seen car hit an immovable object at 60kph you would realise that the chance of survival is minimal. All learner / probationary drivers should witness a vehicle hitting an immovable object at 60kph if they did there would be far less mucking around on the roads....ok im off topic now
I don't know tgladman I think I would take my chances with a brick wall (was that single or double brick wall)
It just doesn't seem right.
Hitting a stationary wall; which presents no opposing force (other than it's integral strength) to overcome as you crash into it.
Yet hitting a vehicle coming towards you; you have that extra opposing force crashing head on into you as you hit it, as opposed to a wall just standing still.
I guess the only way that the two situations can be the same is if the strength in the wall presents a resistance (opposing) force equal to what is exerted by the other car crashing head on into your car.
the way i look at it is.... a dead stop is a dead stop... hit a wall at 60kpm you are slowing from 60 -0kph have a head on at 60kph and the dead stop is the same 60kph down to 0kph.....
if you attached a 15mm cable to the rear of a vehicle chassis and to an anchor point drove at 60kph reached the end of the cable and came to a complete stop the force would again be the same 60kph to 0 kph.
I guess vehicle mass plays a huge part in a head on though as you could easily go from 60kph to minus 10kph ( reverse ) if you had a headon with a truck and were pushed backwards at speed.
what an exiting thread 
Miffbusters didnt do this with kitesand all this car theory is a load of crap because we are on an upwind tack. The upwind rider is way safer and will actually knock the downwind rider backwards if both weigh the same increasing the impact force in most (not all situations).
In a head on would you want to be in the truck or the car?
