I've seen some joking around about the fastest color, and what do you know, Pablo may be right.

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/050518/ap/d8a5pufo0.html

it worked for the communists...

The communists lost tho.

I like the line that is intended to give us a common, everyday reference to visualize the color red in nature:

Just think of the red stripes on the scowling face of the male Mandrill, Africa's largest monkey species.

good imagery...if anybody had the slightest clue what a Mandrill looked like.

Quote from: raylarrabeeI like the line that is intended to give us a common, everyday reference to visualize the color red in nature:

Just think of the red stripes on the scowling face of the male Mandrill, Africa's largest monkey species.

good imagery...if anybody had the slightest clue what a Mandrill looked like.

searching google out of curiosity....
:mrgreen:



a different one...  
http://www.walla-science.at/mandrill.jpg

Hey, cool - I'm subconsciously intimidating when I'm on the SV!

I could say that dark blue is associated with winning and use the yankees. Or... I could say that yellow is, and say that the king of the jungle, the lion, shows us this. That is so terrible.

 -Anti

I rest my case.


Actually I always believed red vehicles affected your personality or mood or something because I always felt more aggressive when I drove my red car (vs other cars). Same is true for my bicycle. And now my motorcycle.

Its the color of blood. The color of anger. The color of passion.

A quick physics lesson...

All electromagnetic radiation (light) travels at 3.00x10^8 m/s, or just over 670 million miles per hour. The frequency (hertz), wavelength (nanometers), & energy (joules) of the light is determined by its color:

Red: 4.3x10^14 Hz, 700nm, 2.8x10^-19 J
Yellow: 5.2x10^14 Hz, 580nm, 3.4x10^-19 J
Blue: 6.4x10^14 Hz, 470nm, 4.2x10^-19 J

Frequency (Hz) X Wavelength (m) = Speed (m/s)

note: 1nm = 1x10^-9m

So as you can see, no matter the color, the speed remains the same. Frequency is inversely proportional to wavelength. Only the energy is different, which Blue has the highest energy level and Red the lowest.

Ok, Dgyver, if yer gonna give 'em Physics lessons spell it right...Joules...they're gonna think yer talkin' about the family jewels. And as my old Chemistry prof used to say "what's new?...C over Lambda". He thought that was hilarious. Love the Baby GS, New Mexico (as opposed to Old Mexico?), and this forum.

C........

Thank you for correcting me.  
Obviously, I am not an English major graduate.

speaking of physics... please note that purple corners the best

As usual, correlation is easily found, but causation is not proven.  The choice of color may simply be an indicator of some other trait or factor causing the higher win percentage.  to wit: if the guy wearing blue switched to red with no other changes, it likely would not increase his chances of winning.

besides, everybody knows that chicago maroon and burnt orange kick the most arse of any colors  

But the Science community associated with Psychology has shown that red is related to a higher incidence of epilectic seizures and when heart rate, blood pressure, eye-blinking and respiration are being measured the color red is associated with an increase in all four events. So it just might be that Pantablo and Roadstergirl are sending their competitors into epilectic seizures or something close anyway. And red may be faster but white lasts longer . Love the little White Owl, Newfoundland (are they a part of Canada?), and this forum.

C........ (I've got the hic-cups and can't get rid of them)

cernunos,
you crack me up

Haha, they use the red sox as an example of wearing red=winning, as if the Red Sox have been winning the World Series for years. Good stuff.

Black is still badass!
Why won't they make a black SV650s?

Makes no difference to me, I always close my eyes when riding, like those drivers coming out of side-roads.

Quote from: BlingmastaHaha, they use the red sox as an example of wearing red=winning, as if the Red Sox have been winning the World Series for years. Good stuff.

and the only things they wear red is their cap and socks...

Sorry to resurrect this one guys, but I had the displeasure of reading this article today when our issue of Nature finally became available to me.

WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!!!

articles like this remind me that the publications "Science" and "Nature" are one step above "omni" and "scientific american".  They are magazines...NOT journals.

I have so many problems with this article that I don't even know where to begin.  The data presented in the plots is truncated to give it an aura of statistical relevence, which the body of the paper itself discredits.  A full 3/4 of the data in some experiments actually supports the null hypothesis.... how silly.  Only an Associated Press writer could possibly be duped into thinking that this study proves ANYTHING..

That's it... If it doesn't come out of a JACS journal, I don't believe it anymore  

Has anyone else read the actual study, and not just the CNN.com blurb?