Larger lap time discrepancies in field in Motorcycles vs. Cars - why?

[ulrichw]

These are just idle musings, and aren't meant to make any statements about whether motorcycles or cars are "better", or anything like that.

I'm relatively new to motorcycle riding, and just started doing trackdays.

Many years ago, I raced cars for a couple of seasons with the SCCA (mid-pack finisher, so nothing spectacular).

One thing I've noticed is that lap times appear to have a different meaning in cars vs. motorcycles.

For example, when people talk about lap times in track days - it's like they're an absolute - e.g., "You should be doing 2:10s to move up a group", etc. Sometimes there will be a qualification as to bike, but many times, there's no real distinction whether you're riding a 60hp bike or a 160hp bike.

In cars, you wouldn't think of equating laptimes between different classes - you would always have to apply an adjustment.

Doing a little more research, what I see is what seem to me to be relatively large time differences among racers in motorcycling vs. cars.

For example, comparing the 650 Twin results from Buttonwillow (http://www.afmracing.org/downloads/results/2007/bw-0307.txt) to the SCCA Spec Racer Ford results from Infineon (http://www.mylaps.com/results/newResults.jsp?id=493820), I make the following observations:
- 650 twins had 43 entrants, vs. 25 for SRF
- The difference in best lap time between 1st and 2nd in motorcycles: about 1 sec - cars: .64 sec
- The difference between midpack and first place in motorcycles: 6 seconds - cars: 1.7 secs
- In the car race, the top 9 (that's more than 1/3rd of the field) ran best laps within 1.5 secs
- In the motorcycle race, the top 9 have a discrepancy of 4 secs - if you go to 1/3rd of the field, you get a discrepancy of 5 secs
- The bottom of the field in motorcycles ran about 10-12 secs off the lead time.
- The bottom of the field in cars ran about 6 seconds off the lead time.

I notice similar discrepancies in results even at the professional level (e.g. AMA level).

So my question is - What are your theories as to why laptimes have larger discrepancies in motorcycle racing than in car racing? (Or do you disagree with this observation?)

Some possibilities I can think of:
- Motorcycles are cheaper than cars to run/race, so you get a wider spread of talent in motorcycles.
- There are more physical aspects to riding a motorcycle well than driving a car, meaning both a wider range of results, and a relatively larger influence of the rider vs. the machine.
- Lack of downforce and huge power-to-weight ratios mean that motorcycles use up their soft tires very quickly compared to cars, which means that overall fast lap times are less representative of race performance.

-- Ulrich

[MSzwarc]

I would agree with the first two of your "possible explanations" for this. I do think we get a wider range of people in the field, so some are not as competitive as the front runners. The physical part of riding a motorcycle has a lot more influence on your results, something that's not really there in cars.

-Martin

[Pakow]

Originally posted by ulrichw
relatively larger influence of the rider vs. the machine.

-- Ulrich



BINGO!

[Holeshot]

Finding the limit in a car is somewhat less daunting than on a bike, as well.

[NoQuarter]

Originally posted by Holeshot
Finding the limit in a car is somewhat less daunting than on a bike, as well.

yeah, i'd say so. a little mistake on the warm up lap in a car typical means a little mud up in the fenders, same thing on bike combined with a bad bounce or two knocks you out of the game for 6 weeks and gets you some hardware:

http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/images/threads/000/201/407/3105232-xrays.jpg

[whatupgc]

Dave-I could of saved you a lot of money and just used my
my nail gun to fix it. Good as new 2 weeks.

[NoQuarter]

ha, no shit... that's about what it is. lol.

[Wild Child]

Originally posted by ulrichw
For example, when people talk about lap times in track days - it's like they're an absolute - e.g., "You should be doing 2:10s to move up a group", etc. Sometimes there will be a qualification as to bike, but many times, there's no real distinction whether you're riding a 60hp bike or a 160hp bike.

I'd like to address this question: using your link to the AFM results, if you look at the top 250 prod finishers doing 2:09 - 2:16 and compare them to the top FP finishers doing 1:48's, you wouldn't want the 250's out on the track in the same group as the FP guys. Even though they are fast for their type of bike, they would be rolling road blocks for the FP guys. If you could get the 60 hp bike around the track in 1:50, then by all means, join the 160hp guys ;)

[enzo76]

Sort of related to possibility #2, but there's more room on the track for a bike than a car, allowing for different lines, passing possibilities, that incrementally account for gaps in lap times.

Seems to me that a freight train can form up quickly in a car race. I wonder if each car were given 6 laps individually at T-Hill, would times spread out a bit?

[Zerox]

Motorcycle racing is more difficult IMHO. Seen a lot of motorcycle racers retire and take up car racing (Wayne Gardner, Eddie Lawson, Kevin Schwantz, Aaron Slight, Ricky Carmichael etc).

Haven't seen any car racers retire and take up motorcycle racing though.

[ulrichw]

Originally posted by enzo76
Sort of related to possibility #2, but there's more room on the track for a bike than a car, allowing for different lines, passing possibilities, that incrementally account for gaps in lap times.

Seems to me that a freight train can form up quickly in a car race. I wonder if each car were given 6 laps individually at T-Hill, would times spread out a bit?

I don't think they'd change much:

While it's definitely harder to pass with cars, fields tend to be smaller, and because grids are done by qualifying times, most people get to run the pace they're truly capable of.

Also: If you look at qualifying times, their distribution is comparable to fast laps during the race. (Qualifying is done as a group, so it's not quite a "pure" test, but people will generally get at least a few good laps in a session).

-- Ulrich

[ulrichw]

Originally posted by Wild Child
I'd like to address this question: using your link to the AFM results, if you look at the top 250 prod finishers doing 2:09 - 2:16 and compare them to the top FP finishers doing 1:48's, you wouldn't want the 250's out on the track in the same group as the FP guys. Even though they are fast for their type of bike, they would be rolling road blocks for the FP guys. If you could get the 60 hp bike around the track in 1:50, then by all means, join the 160hp guys ;)

Note that my quote was specific to track days.

I'm not sure I completely agree with your using FP to support your point, as well; I'd think it's not very comparable to overall fields.

If you look at 650 twins and open superbike, classes more representative of my example, you can see that there's a surprising (to me) amount of overlap of lap times in the fields, given the horsepower discrepancy of the classes.

-- Ulrich

[Ace of Hearts]

Also, any dork can race motorcycles. The cost to enter the activity is miniscule compared to cars. So there are a larger number of less committed racers participating. Consider the effort it takes to make an off the showroom floor SV650 race legal to taking a Honda Civic off the showroom floor and making it race legal.

The AFM driver's qualifications are almost non existent when compared to SCCA. Compare the minimum of getting an AFM license to the minimum of getting an SCCA license and you are in the whole different ball park. Liken it to comparing getting a drivers license from the DMV verses getting a pilot's license endorsed by the FAA.

For instance, If I recall correctly, to get an SCCA license one has to basically take three (maybe it is two) entire track days with the instructor sitting next to the student (in your car or a car that was rented that is race legal). There is also tiering of licenses. One cannot simply race GT-1 out of the gate.

[Wild Child]

Originally posted by ulrichw
Note that my quote was specific to track days.

I'm not sure I completely agree with your using FP to support your point, as well; I'd think it's not very comparable to overall fields.

If you look at 650 twins and open superbike, classes more representative of my example, you can see that there's a surprising (to me) amount of overlap of lap times in the fields, given the horsepower discrepancy of the classes.

-- Ulrich

I was just using your link to some lap times. Didn't mean I was talking about racing. I'm sure they don't run race pace at trackdays, but subtract 10% for both and the point is the same. You said a 60 hp bike compared to a 160 hp bike, and those classes came to mind. I believe 650 twins have more than 60 hp too...

[NoQuarter]

i think the money argument is really missing the mark. how again does the cost of entry into either sport dictate the skill level of the participants?

i really think it boils down to the difference in the learning curve in relation to the human half of the man and machine equation. both sports require learning what to do with your hands, feet and eyes and then developing a feel for what the machine is doing. but the variable of body position and subsequent weight transfer is a non issue in a car.

it makes learning to getting 90 percent performance out of your car much easier than getting to 90 percent out of your bike. so regardless of how many people are doing it, the initial jumps of getting to a "fast" pace are easier in a car.

i mean really, how hard is it to squeal the tires on your car going around a corner versus getting to that same limit of traction on your bike?

[christofu]

Since you're specifcally talking about track days... during a track day I think it's MUCH fairer to group by laptime than to group by displacement or type of bike.

I, for example, ride a bike that makes 60hp (on a good day) but I turn A group laptimes on it. So I get to ride with A group riders who neither hold me up nor who I hold up (too much).

I'd be a little annoyed if I was forced to ride with the other 60hp bikes, many of whom would be turning much slower laptimes than me. They would both hold me up and sometimes get the poo scared out of them.

Same with race practice groups. Sure, it can get frustrating when you get caught behind a big bike who spurts on the straights and parks it in the turns but I still prefer that to battling through packs of sometimes significantly slower riders. Just as I'm sure that I would frustrate a much faster rider if I was a rolling roadblock for them.

[Ace of Hearts]

By the money mark, I mean there is a very different kind of demographic racing motorcycles than there are cars. Those racing cars made a much bigger logistical commitment to get there than those racing motorcycles. So I hypothesis they are more serious about putting a racing effort together.

Those racing cars have also had a much more thorough instructional process to earn the right to race SCCA (NASA is considerably more lax). So the skill level factor between the front and back is also narrower than large AFM grids.

Also, Formula Classes for SCCA are also a lot narrower in terms of machinery limitations. While in AFM Formula means almost anything goes per displacement, in Car racing it means almost nothing goes. Same chassis, same motor that is stock and sealed, and everyone is on the same tires. Those cars with new model years have limitations up on them to make older cars more competitive against them.

I won’t argue the fact the most dominant element is picking up speed and the limits in a car is much easier than a motorcycle. In a car, your options for going faster than the guy next to you are narrower than they are for the choices you have for a motorcycle.

Then put everyone in the same chassis, with the same sealed motor, and on the same tires and the only difference between each car is the driver and the limitations of the suspension knobs they can tweak.

[NoQuarter]

Originally posted by Ace of Hearts
....
Then put everyone in the same chassis, with the same sealed motor, and on the same tires and the only difference between each car is the driver and the limitations of the suspension knobs they can tweak.

agreed to the bulk of that. as to this last comment... imagine the same scenario with bikes with just the top say 25 percent of the AFM field (to eliminate the aforementioned factors). i imagine that the spread between lap times would still be a pretty wide margin compared with the car drivers.

[Holeshot]

Relative to car trackdays, the lap times are just as widely spaced as bikes...the only difference being a better car makes up for less skill. That's far less common for bikes. In my last two trackdays Me and a friend were near the fastest of the cars in the advanced group. Mind you, I'm not an excellent driver, but simply, the car's limits and capabilites are so much easier to get to, and mistakes mean far less (minus the guy in the Viper who hit the K wall in T12 at Thill, upside down).

You'll find that the mortality factor plays heavier in bikes than it does cars.

[lokisdog]

Originally posted by Holeshot
Relative to car trackdays, the lap times are just as widely spaced as bikes...the only difference being a better car makes up for less skill. That's far less common for bikes. In my last two trackdays Me and a friend were near the fastest of the cars in the advanced group. Mind you, I'm not an excellent driver, but simply, the car's limits and capabilites are so much easier to get to, and mistakes mean far less (minus the guy in the Viper who hit the K wall in T12 at Thill, upside down).

You'll find that the mortality factor plays heavier in bikes than it does cars.

Echo that, I'll take waaay more chances in a car than I will on a bike and it's much easier to find the limit.

Back in October John Hopkins and F1 racer Tonio Liuzzi swapped rides at Valencia, after getting settled in Hopins did a 1:19 which is only about 5 seconds off the real F1 driver's race pace, but Liuzzi wasn't nearly that close to Hopkin's MotoGP race time on the bike. Like they said in "Faster", in a car the car is the greater part of the equation, but on a bike the rider influences the outcome much more

Here's one article.


http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=237643&FS=F1