It's actually moped with 4 speed box, engine is similar to Honda Z50, which again is same as used in many Chinese cross bikes, so gearbox comes with motor and is able to somewhat hold up actually. What would not hold up would be most likely rear wheel hub, especially with turbo it would eat those. But yeah, sleeper it would be, it is this model: http://ztechbike.hu/en/product/zt-70-nm50-c-retro-2/ I guess it would be somewhere around 20-30hp at maximum, so not a rocket and you can get 190cc race motors with have around same power, but surely something to harass teenagers with Because of limited funds I might have to settle to 110cc motor though.
Ever been in a Geo Metro doing 80? It'll feel pretty impressive then, and absolutely terrifying. I had a friend in high school who had three Geo's, a Metro hatch back, a Metro sedan, and a Prizm. The hatchback was an automatic, and especially awful, it ended up in a compact derby last year. The Metro sedan was mildly better, it was a manual, and he was not nice to it, shifting at the redline every time, killing it instead of shutting it off, pretending it's a rally car on what were basically deer paths. It eventually blew up, and we actually ended up flattening it with a dozer. The Prizm was his back-up daily driver, and I think he's still got it too.
It'll do a lot better. How much better, I don't know thanks to the "lol weak transmission" governmor, but it will break into the triple digits and I have the ticket to prove it.
The smaller and more sketchy the vehicle, the faster it feels. Going 40km/h in a car is very different to going down a hill at 40km/h on a BMX bike.
All of you guys are silly, three digits on bumpy backroads* is where it's at *Although the afore mentioned road was extremely straight and didn't have any trees or houses nearby
80km/h on road bike feels interesting experience too, you need a good hill and plenty of tail wind to get that speed though
I was shocked by the number of people in the comments of this video saying the cars that got hit are at fault too because they didn't give enough distance, so I decided to do a test. The results: So, if a requirement for minimum distance between stationary vehicles were to be made, it would have to be at least ~20 metres for an 80km/h road like in the video, which is both impractical and unenforceable. Some people clearly have no understanding of physics.
Of course there is minimum distance, it is reaction time + stopping time, for average Joe reaction time is anything between 1-2 seconds. Driving 20 meters from car in front of you is not safe at that speed, idea is that if car at front of you crashes or stops all of sudden you have to be able to stop before crashing, so 22-44 meters for reaction and 40-50 meters for stopping, that is for safe driving you should never drive closer than 62-94 meters from one at front of you at those speeds, driving any closer and it is not safe. 3-4 seconds is absolutely minimum, and driving any closer than 2 seconds (44 meters) will get you fined in some countries. It is not race out there and someone will always make mistakes, safe driving is leaving room for mistakes, accidents usually happen as there are several mistakes, so allowing distance for mistakes others make and oneself possible makes is only sensible thing to do and if driver fails to stop before car at front, it is fault of driver that rear ends. If there is too much traffic to have such safe margins, speed limit needs to be lowered or amount of traffic reduced. That is really basic stuff taught in driving school.
@fufsgfen What they teach you in driving school where I live is that you must be able to see where the tires of the vehicle in front of you touch the pavement, which is about 2-3 metres in most cars. This prevents cars from rolling back into you on hills and gives you room to pull out of the lane if you need to, but it does not stop you being shunted into the car in front of you like in the video. My point is that it's not possible to prevent this, as having cars stop 20m behind each other is absurd.
It was not stationary, it stopped, one manages to stop, other behind that did not manage to stop, hence not enough distance by one that failed to stop. It does not mean that one was too close when stationary. Those chain crashes happen, when one brakes, other drives bit close and brakes bit harder, then one behind was again too close and can't brake any harder so crashes, which can push even first one forward. First one was not too close to stationary one which was reason why it had to brake in first place, but 3rd one was too close as did not manage to stop. Even bigger is then factor where many people observe just rear end of vehicle right in front of them, which is making much more important to keep that distance.
That's my point. I'm not saying someone who rear ends a car isn't at fault. That would be stupid. All I'm saying is that the 2nd car (and 3rd in the case of the video) is not at fault.
Oh, now I understand what you meant. If those video commenting persons claim that when stopped there should be more distance, then I'm in disbelief of human race, but it would not be first time.
Yeah, the stopping distance is all very well and good, but if the car in front of you slows from the speed limit to 0 in 0.5 seconds your probably going to have to take some evasive action if you want to avoid it.
After watching hours and hours of Russian driving, I would never dare to drive close to other car, they tend to make crumpling stops all of sudden, better stay well clear of those! One day I was riding with my moped on local road, semi with trailer decided it will overtake me on uphill, it was snowing and there were all kinds of ruts of ice on road, but he still decided it is ok to overtake me using half arm's length as distance, it would of not needed much of error and I would of been dead, which might not be that bad thing, but driver might loose his job and that would be bad thing. Road is very narrow and has lot of turns as well as hills, during winter it is lot narrower, so sometimes there are all kind of situations.
