If the distance is maintained, then yes, but obviously that's not much use in a non hypothetical world. In the real world, then no, it's hard to guarantee your brakes are better at slowing you than a brick wall.
1-10th of a mile is 160m, at 200mph you'd travel 89 m-s. That's a 1.8 second gap, which is almost enough by the "two second rule". Sadly with the two second rule, separation distance is proprortional to speed, whilst stopping distance is proportional to the square of the speed, so it isn't really enough to cope with the brick wall scenario.
Speeding is dangerous. uU|G*dfHK8Zr48Wrong. You need to go away and learn at a better school. Correct, but that's NOT what you said. Now substansiate your buttertion or withdraw it. Like I said, you have a *serious* comprehension problem...
A rule I got told for my theory test is:
Thinking distance = (speed in mph) feet Stopping distance = (speed in mph) * (speed in mph-20) feet
Which would make the stopping distance from 200mph:
Speeding is dangerous. 15922 situations, which is safe and which is unsafe? 1. Car driving at around 85 on 3 lane motorway. As driver gets round a corner-brow of...
Distance = 200 + 200 * (200-20) = 200 + 200*10 = 2200ft = 670m (= 0.4 miles)
As for actual stopping distances, I have no idea. F1 cars can do significantly better than 0.4 miles, because of the large downforce giving better grip.
In reality, most cars (well, the ones that can reach 200mph and don't have huge wings, which probably isn't many) could probably get significant braking from the huge drag. Wings would increase the drag and give more downforce. So I suspect it's a bit less than 0.4 miles, if that rule isn't too far out at such absurd speeds.
-- David Taylor
