Ya................ THAT WILL WORK!

[Bapak2ja]

Gentlemen, the idiot had no forward motion to allow him to dissipate the gravitational downward pull. Instead of landing on an incline with forward motion to help decrease the force of the fall, he landed flat on a stationary surface. Compare it to jumping off a two-story roof onto the back yard concrete patio or off the roof onto a deep snowdrift that sends you heading downhill to the pond.

BTW, was that list of injuries given above accurate or just wishful thinking? I could not tell if the poster forgot the purple.

 

[Gamez235]

Nope it was pretty accurate. Idiot or not, he lived life and did what he loved.

 

[CountryBoy19]

Gentlemen, the idiot had no forward motion to allow him to dissipate the gravitational downward pull. Instead of landing on an incline with forward motion to help decrease the force of the fall, he landed flat on a stationary surface. Compare it to jumping off a two-story roof onto the back yard concrete patio or off the roof onto a deep snowdrift that sends you heading downhill to the pond.

Forward motion will not dissipate gravitational pull.

I think it's quite evident that he didn't hit the landing ramp, which is essentially what I get out of your post. The motion is relative motion. All motion is measured relative to some other object that is considered the "stationary" object, but what is a "stationary object"? One that isn't moving? Since movement is measured relative to another object, then what exactly is "stationary"? It's an arbitrary definition used to describe the "lack of motion", but that lack of motion is really only a lack of motion relative to itself and other objects that share a common velocity with it. There really never is a truly stationary object.

Simple example: We typically measure motion relative to the earth. We consider earth a stationary object, but is it really stationary? No, it's moving too. So if the earth is moving, how do we measure the motion of the earth? It's measured relative to the sun, which in this case is considered the stationary object. But is the sun stationary? No, the sun is moving relative to other stars and galaxies.

Now that we have an understanding of the complications of relative motion, we can the earth, sun, galaxy example. I could say that the biker was moving 10 fps to the right, or I could say the ramp was moving 18,983,859,584,738,596,578,237 fps to the right, and the biker was moving 18,983,859,584,738,596,578,247 fps to the right, there is no difference, there is a 10 fps speed differential between the two. The basics of it all come down to the fact that when a stationary (relative to earth) ramp is used, and the biker's velocity is XX value (relative to earth) his velocity relative to the ramp is also XX value. When the ramp is not stationary, then the biker's motion relative to the ramp is the difference of the biker's motion relative to a common object. We'll pick the earth. If the ramp is moving left at 8 fps, and the biker right at 2 fps then we get -8 - 2 = -10 fps. We could just as easily measure the motion relative to some other object. Lets say the ramp is fixed to the earth, but the earth is moving left at 8 fps, and the biker is moving right at 2 fps, the difference is still 10 fps. The biker still hits the ramp at the same relative speed, and gravities effects don't change; gravity is gravity is gravity, period.


Upon further examination of the video I think I've figured out what went wrong. It was a combination of 2 things. #1, The relative motion was too great, simply put he overshot the ramp. This would have happened even if the ramp was stationary. If the intended speed on a stationary ramp was 10 and he was going 12, it would have caused the same scenario. #2, he came down slightly to the left (as viewed from his perspective, not the drivers), so even if he hadn't overshot the ramp, he likely still would have missed it.

But just curious, is there anybody else from an engineering/physics/science background here that understands what I'm saying regarding relative motion?

 

[schafe]

Months after this happened and his girlfriend left he committed suicide.

I guess there should have been an intervention during this first attempt!

 

[Mr. Habib]

Nope his name was Colin Winkelmann, he was a record holding, super talented bike rider. This wreck shattered both ankles, dislocated his left ankle, double dislocated his right ankle, shattered his tibia in the left leg and mangled some cartilage, broke his navicular bone and dislocated two other bones in his left wrist, and fractured his L3 vertebrae. Months after this happened and his girlfriend left he committed suicide.

So does this mean that I won't get my croissant?

 

[Ogre]

....
But just curious, is there anybody else from an engineering/physics/science background here that understands what I'm saying regarding relative motion?

Negative Ghostrider...
(Well, Im sure there are, but I am not one of them...lol)

 

[Bapak2ja]

Forward motion will not dissipate gravitational pull.

I think it's quite evident that he didn't hit the landing ramp, which is essentially what I get out of your post. The motion is relative motion. All motion is measured relative to some other object that is considered the "stationary" object, but what is a "stationary object"? One that isn't moving? Since movement is measured relative to another object, then what exactly is "stationary"? It's an arbitrary definition used to describe the "lack of motion", but that lack of motion is really only a lack of motion relative to itself and other objects that share a common velocity with it. There really never is a truly stationary object.

Simple example: We typically measure motion relative to the earth. We consider earth a stationary object, but is it really stationary? No, it's moving too. So if the earth is moving, how do we measure the motion of the earth? It's measured relative to the sun, which in this case is considered the stationary object. But is the sun stationary? No, the sun is moving relative to other stars and galaxies.

Now that we have an understanding of the complications of relative motion, we can the earth, sun, galaxy example. I could say that the biker was moving 10 fps to the right, or I could say the ramp was moving 18,983,859,584,738,596,578,237 fps to the right, and the biker was moving 18,983,859,584,738,596,578,247 fps to the right, there is no difference, there is a 10 fps speed differential between the two. The basics of it all come down to the fact that when a stationary (relative to earth) ramp is used, and the biker's velocity is XX value (relative to earth) his velocity relative to the ramp is also XX value. When the ramp is not stationary, then the biker's motion relative to the ramp is the difference of the biker's motion relative to a common object. We'll pick the earth. If the ramp is moving left at 8 fps, and the biker right at 2 fps then we get -8 - 2 = -10 fps. We could just as easily measure the motion relative to some other object. Lets say the ramp is fixed to the earth, but the earth is moving left at 8 fps, and the biker is moving right at 2 fps, the difference is still 10 fps. The biker still hits the ramp at the same relative speed, and gravities effects don't change; gravity is gravity is gravity, period.


Upon further examination of the video I think I've figured out what went wrong. It was a combination of 2 things. #1, The relative motion was too great, simply put he overshot the ramp. This would have happened even if the ramp was stationary. If the intended speed on a stationary ramp was 10 and he was going 12, it would have caused the same scenario. #2, he came down slightly to the left (as viewed from his perspective, not the drivers), so even if he hadn't overshot the ramp, he likely still would have missed it.

But just curious, is there anybody else from an engineering/physics/science background here that understands what I'm saying regarding relative motion?

Sorry, friend, but I went into the soft sciences (anthropology/theology) to avoid the math. I was speaking in layman's terms. We often see snow boarders and ski jumpers land on inclines from significant heights without difficulty. I was comparing this landing with those landings. When those folks land on the incline, they avoid the physical damages. If the jumpers were to land without the incline from the heights they are using, I expect they would have some physical damage. I believe this bike jumper would have fared better if he had landed on the ramp. I could not express that in terms of physics or math.

I do not disregard or denigrate your engineering skill and calculations. Both my sons are engineers (trained at Purdue and Rose-Hulman). I just do not have the training or the inclination to work through it.

 

[printcraft]

To boil it down to laymans terms:

The speed at which he hit the ramp was too great causing him to go too high.
Causing the landing ramp to not be there when he came back down.

or not.


The van driver could have been off on his speed than what was originally planned.
"Dude, he said 10 mph, but I'll do 20 mph. It'll be way more awesome!"

 

[CountryBoy19]

To boil it down to laymans terms:

The speed at which he hit the ramp was too great causing him to go too high.
Causing the landing ramp to not be there when he came back down.

That's pretty much what I figured after watching it again.

It's pretty much the exact same as missing the ramp with a stationary ramp.

I guess this is just got a "wow" factor to it because the ramp is attached to a van, giving the impression that this is more dangerous than a standard, stationary ramp.

 

[CaptainMorgan92]

This wouldve gone better if they used a bus...

 

[Ogre]

To boil it down to laymans terms:

The speed at which he hit the ramp was too great causing him to go too high.
Causing the landing ramp to not be there when he came back down.

or not.


The van driver could have been off on his speed than what was originally planned.
"Dude, he said 10 mph, but I'll do 20 mph. It'll be way more awesome!"

yeah, past the point of mounting the ramps to the van, I doubt there was much "planning" involved

 

[jblomenberg16]

I think the Mythbusters should test this one. It goes along with the "Plane on a tread mill" and "Parking a car on a moving semi trailer Night-rider style" episodes.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Gravity wins.

 

[Bapak2ja]

Gravity wins.

I like your return to basics here. Fits with the basic KISS approach to things.

 

[gunman41mag]

He won't be able to sit on the toilet for awhile

 

[jason867]

He won't be able to sit on the toilet for awhile

more like evar...

 

[INyooper]

Obey gravity ...because it's the law!

"I fought the law and the law won."

or, as Tom Petty might say...

"Because I'm free ...free falling..."

Then again, Forest, Forest Gump has a point as well...

"Stupid is as stupid does."

Still, if the stunt actually would have worked (and, yeah, I think a bus would have helped ...along with some actual "stunt design engineers"), we would have all been <in my best Spicolli impression> "Woah dude, that is like totally knarly ...isn't it, Mr. Hand!?!"

Reminds me ...once upon a time I used to help out at high school track meets by officiating the pole vault event. It happened that at one particular meet, one of the participants was named "Steve Platt." Entering his first initial and last name on the form I was using, I wrote "SPlatt." Ironically, the thought came to mind "Nothing good can come of this." Fortunately, he did not live up to his newly created moniker.

The person in this video may have been his brother, however.

 

[gunman]

steve-o from jack@$$ & ryan simonette did a similar stunt using a smaller ramp mounted on a fourwheeler with no landing ramp, worked everytime for them. should be on youtube somewhere

 

[shibumiseeker]

But just curious, is there anybody else from an engineering/physics/science background here that understands what I'm saying regarding relative motion?

I do, but I think you've missed a factor in his delta V and Colin didn't adjust his ramp accordingly to offset for the apparent motion of the van.

If the ramps had been stationary they would be angled so the tops can match his trajectory to maintain enough forward motion to match the parabola (near parabola neglecting for air resistance and curvature of the earths gravitational field for the true pedants...) that his velocity would have imparted.

But because the van was moving, the acceleration of Colin going up the ramp did not decay as fast as it would have had he just been coasting with his initial velocity, so the delta V of him coasting vs the van moving would be much greater, giving him less imparted upwards velocity. I think it's THAT delta V difference that screwed him.

 

[shibumiseeker]

Gravity wins.

There is no such thing as gravity. The Earth sucks.