Inteligent, Fact Based Discussion: Car vs Bike

[Dr. Evil]

Bye bye litrebikes!

Too bad it ain't street legal in the U.S.

 

[McBride61]

Ultimately faster after throwing who knows how much money at it? Car. Can't beat downforce & grip.
As to which is generally more fun for the money? Bike, by far.

This is why I picked car. Track times are normally held by a car or go kart lol 1/4 mile is only part of racing so a 9 sec bike is good and all

 

[Cheyenne]

I think that the poll should be split into "on the street" and "on the track" categories. You can get from point A to point B much faster on a bike when in traffic, but all the track records are held by cars. You simply can't compare "between street and track" - they are totally different things.

Yes, but on the street, bikes only have an advantage in traffic...a bicycle holds much of that same advantage.

On the street, where there are dirty roads, and unexpected surprises, a bike is even slower than on the track, if the rider has any sense of self preservation.

I can rail around city streets too...slippery manhole covers don't bother cars much at all.

Bike are awesome, and I can't wait to get mine back on the road...but man, they're toys compared to even humble cars when it comes to performance. They have acceleration, and NOTHING else.

Bye bye literbikes:

 

[Asphaultnaut]

and more intertia to oppose changes in direction. nevermind the difficulty and expense in getting the same power/weight ration of even a middleweight bike out of a car.

just found this for a comparison in a difficult course involving different road surfaces, heavy altitude change, and short tight corners:

http://www.zimbio.com/Ducati+Motorc...Stock+Ducati+Wins+Pikes+Peak+Motorcycle+Event

the current RWD record is almost two seconds slower, requiring much more horsepower and displacement to obtain. There's the link to the video in the Sink for that run.

To make comparisons of cars vs. bikes, and then modify the comparison by removing the biggest advantage of power/weight ratio of factory stock machines, is somewhat silly. To be fair you need to remove two of the car's wheels. Or make the expense for the vehicles the same. What's faster- $12K of motorcycle from a dealer showroom or $12K of car from a dealer showroom?

With similar power to weight ratios, the car, hands down. They simply have more ultimate grip

 

[Asphaultnaut]

Bah you kids these days with your plastic transmission linkages and your fuel injection deviltry! Respect your elders!

Best. Rally. Car. EVAR-the Ford Pinto Runabout:

Yes, but on the street, bikes only have an advantage in traffic...a bicycle holds much of that same advantage.

On the street, where there are dirty roads, and unexpected surprises, a bike is even slower than on the track, if the rider has any sense of self preservation.

I can rail around city streets too...slippery manhole covers don't bother cars much at all.

Bike are awesome, and I can't wait to get mine back on the road...but man, they're toys compared to even humble cars when it comes to performance. They have acceleration, and NOTHING else.

Bye bye literbikes:

 

[Cheyenne]

just found this for a comparison in a difficult course involving different road surfaces, heavy altitude change, and short tight corners:

http://www.zimbio.com/Ducati+Motorc...Stock+Ducati+Wins+Pikes+Peak+Motorcycle+Event

Should I not have gone to the article on the same site where they compare the Honda Fit, and have a hard time getting away from it on a bike, downhill???

Asphaultnaut: I think a pinto with a 429 might be a good start for a cheap motorcycle fighter that equalizes the power to weight issue...

 

[ucb]

To make comparisons of cars vs. bikes, and then modify the comparison by removing the biggest advantage of power/weight ratio of factory stock machines, is somewhat silly. To be fair you need to remove two of the car's wheels. Or make the expense for the vehicles the same. What's faster- $12K of motorcycle from a dealer showroom or $12K of car from a dealer showroom?

It costs more to accelerate, stop, and turn a 3000lb vehicle compared to a 400lb one, there is no question in that.

 

[Spec-ECU]

Bye bye litrebikes!

Too bad it ain't street legal in the U.S.

It's not? I thought it was.

[youtube]WaWoo82zNUA[/youtube]

Ariel Atom pictured above vs. a CBR600RR starts at the 4:50 mark. I don't think it would've made that much of a difference if it was the 1000RR.

 

[Dr. Evil]

I think you have to register it as a kit car, and I *KNOW* you could never sneak the turbo V8 in the really hot version past CARB, no siree...

 

[ucb]

They are sold in the US but as race cars essentially.

But for how much they are, I think I'd rather just get a Radical SR8

 

[Burning1]

Ariel Atom pictured above vs. a CBR600RR starts at the 4:50 mark. I don't think it would've made that much of a difference if it was the 1000RR.

Who's riding the bike? James May? That's not the most aggressive riding I've ever seen.

 

[sixtytwo]

Bike are awesome, and I can't wait to get mine back on the road...but man, they're toys compared to even humble cars when it comes to performance. They have acceleration, and NOTHING else.

Well, I think we all knew what your stance on the whole cars vs bikes debate is

However, I'd honestly be interested in your definition of performance if it doesn't include acceleration. People have invested tens of thousands of dollars into their cars to wring out a few ounces worth of acceleration. Something about that tells me it's no laughing matter.

I mean, take a stock taurus and a stock 600 to a dragstrip. Unless the rider has only rode for a few miles in his entire life, I think I'll put my money on the bike.

 

[Cdgskater]

Dont know what everyone has said in this thread but those videos only showed track riding. Where the poll says between STREET and track. I voted for bikes simply because bikes are easier to slip through obstructions on street and on the track they usually win...if they dont they are within 1 sec...im surprised that cars are winning the poll...

 

[Spec-ECU]

im surprised that cars are winning the poll...

I'm guessing it's cause those who voted forgot what constitutes real world conditions.

 

[K-dog]

What's faster- $12K of motorcycle from a dealer showroom or $12K of car from a dealer showroom?

I'm guessing it's cause those who voted forgot what constitutes real world conditions.

For me, that breaks down "real world conditions". When it comes to cost I'd say the bike wins hands down. Though I know those motogp guys throw a ton of money at it, and at that level the gains are decreasing so it may get skewed around there. That's not real world for me.

 

[Cheyenne]

Well, I think we all knew what your stance on the whole cars vs bikes debate is

However, I'd honestly be interested in your definition of performance if it doesn't include acceleration.

Lateral acceleration.

But most importantly, the ability to dance...the vehicle should be your dance partner. Notice that Porsches often don't stack up against their competition well in skidpad numbers, but then come back and take the slalom testing...it's not just ultimate grip, it's the ability to change direction under control.

Given that criteria, bikes win. My CBR can dance, as could my CRX. The Stealth thinks it can...we've all seen those folks on the dance floor, good for amusement, but you're not going to win a contest.

And yeah, lots of people spend a lot of money on acceleration...when you have no skill to provide thrills with, all you can do is plant your foot, and then throw more dollars at it when the excitement wears off. I went from a Taurus to a 94 CBR600 for acceleration...it was nice for the first few times, I'm over it now....I'm not going to chase that feeling, it's the same as drug addiction, they are looking for that same "hit" they got the first time...and it gets costly.

Bikes are a blast, but there just isn't enough rubber on the ground for them to be performance leaders.

Also...magazines have done "real world" tests with bikes and cars on mountain roads...it's even more evident there that cars win. Not sure why anyone would think otherwise. The only way bikes win is in cost effectiveness. And you pay for that by needing a lot more skill to extract the same level of performance from them.

 

[EastBayDave]

Ironically, you misspelled intelligent.

run! it's the grammer polize!!1

Everyone here should be smarte (SP!) enough to know cars have more rubba on the ground in all cases, therefore- more grip.

 

[Carlo]

It's kinda broad.

I have to echo this remark.

The term "real world", to me, rules out "ideal conditions", that is the best driver/rider under the best road/weather/traffic conditions, on the best available motorcycle, and in the best available car.

Under "real world" conditions, that is to say, a random matchup of a random motorcyclist on the average motorcycle, vs a random driver in the average car, where both participants are willingly racing, I'd say the motorcyclist will win at least 75% of the time.

Most motorcycles are faster and quicker than most cars. Most motorcyclists are (who are inclined to get into street racers) better riders than most drivers who are similarly inclined.

This is based on my own observations, obtained during more than a few impromptu contests on backroads with people in cars. I haven't experienced too many humiliations over the years.

 

[Burning1]

Also...magazines have done "real world" tests with bikes and cars on mountain roads...it's even more evident there that cars win. Not sure why anyone would think otherwise. The only way bikes win is in cost effectiveness. And you pay for that by needing a lot more skill to extract the same level of performance from them.

Cheyenne, in the 'real world' (street) it's a lot easier and a lot safer to drive a car near it's performance limits than a sport bike. Especially with traction control, stability control, and ABS being standard on most sports cars.

 

[ucb]

It's a lot easier to go fast on a track in a car as well.