That's the speed a tube train is going by the time its left the station?
Usain Bolt manages 27mph.
Lets say Bond can do 20mph (in a suit of course)
Then jumping and grabbing a door handle going at a relative 20mph+. Without dislocating anything.
Amazing.
Well, he is James Bond. And his suit is dislocation-resistant, of course. ;o)
But where did you get the value of 40 mph?
From http://metro.co.uk/2013/01/09/london-underground-turns-150-top-10-tube-facts-3344227/:
5 – The average speed of a Tube train is 33km/h, but speeds of up to 50mph can be reached on the Victoria line and 60mph on the Metropolitan.So, average speed of a tube train is 33 km/h, which is 20.5 mph.
Tube train acceleration is 1.3 metres per second. Multiply that by the number of seconds it takes to leave the platform, which is about 14 seconds. 14x1.3=18.2 m/s, which is 40 mph.
The line he was on is not a slow line.
Anyway, even if it was less than 40, its still preposterous!
I saw Bond do it.
Flawlessly presented on screen.
What no man Can give ya. And none Can take away.
Ah, got it. Thanks!
The value of 1.3 m/s^2 (= 1.3 meters per second squared) is a Tube train's *maximum* acceleration; so the train may have been accelerating at a lower rate. However, the speed difference would probably indeed still have been massive. (If the train accelerated at only half of that, 0.65 m/s^2, then the train would still have reached a speed of 30 mph.)
Of course the movie The Tuxedo (2002) already revealed the secret to Bond's extraordinary physical capabilities and skills. :)
______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
http://youtu.be/VI57QHL6ge0
Yurenchu - well said with science, despite desperate morons backpeddling.
shareYour Godd*mn right he can
shareWhat makes you assume that the train is going anywhere near full speed when he jumps on it? It would make sense for them not to travel at full speed while in the station and wait until they are completely out of it to ramp it up, so to speak.
Time wounds all heels.
That's exactly what I thought.
shareAnd yet idiots think that the Daniel Craig movies are "more realistic" than the silly old Roger Moore ones. Skyfall has without a doubt the least plausible plot of any Bond film I've ever seen. It's absolutely impossible, but don't tell that to the Dark Knight fanboys who have ruined cinema.
shareCompletely agree.
I watch bonds as background movies and the villians.
It's been a long time since the series has had a good villain. The villains are really what makes these films good. Sanchez or whatever his name is was just a vanilla, watered down version of 006, and he was so generic that he could have been a villain in any other film series. I could totally see Batman, Jason Bourne, the MCU characters, or Indiana Jones fighting against this villain. He's just some random baddie who does some stuff. Nothing about him resembles a classic Bond villain.
shareNever of thought of your idea before, but you are correct. The last great Bond villain was probably during the Roger Moore era.
I like Sanchez from the Dalton movie, but because he was a grounded villain, but that doesn't change your point.
Uh, yeah. I mean of course! It’s motherf’n Bond! (Craig’s Bond to be exact - salty haters gonna be salty.)
shareJames grabbed that train and BONDed with it.
But but but but but but...the cinematography was good! Or at least some other fanboy on the internet said so.
shareBond at this point in time is pretty much anything..
share