Replies

It occurs to me that 172 mph at night is likely "over driving your headlights"...

Well, let's see: I found the Porsche Panamera having a listed 60 mph braking-to-stop distance of 99 ft. Given that going 172 mph is ~2.86 times faster than 60 mph, and the brakes have basically constant braking power but energy is proportional to the square of speed, he'd need 2.86² times the 60 mph braking distance to stop, or ~814 ft. That's assuming the brakes don't fade or otherwise fade during such an extreme circumstance (I have my doubts), and that the braking distance actually scales without the ABS kicking in (I also have my doubts).

According to the ol' Google, typical braking reaction time for a driver (recognize issue, transfer foot to brake pedal, and press) is about .75 seconds. .75 seconds at a rate of travel of 172 mph adds on another 189 ft. Of course, that's assuming intoxication isn't slowing reactions (lol in Hunter's case).

So, we have a very charitable minimum braking distance of 1003 ft / 333 yds. Or, to put that into something more relatable for people, that's equivalent to the distance covered in 12.4 seconds of travel at a rate of travel of 55 mph.

Beyond the headlights indeed...

Bonus: I did some quick math, and assuming no heat loss to air cooling (obviously not the case), the brakes at least won't melt, even if they have aluminum components. But They're probably going to achieve 600 plus degrees F even allowing for air cooling, perhaps even flirting with 700. Pretty sure we're in serious brake fade country at that point.

I just realized I neglected engine braking, but still: driving that fast anywhere but a designated race course is beyond reckless.

Thank you!

You seem to enjoy homework more than I ......