Inteligent, Fact Based Discussion: Car vs Bike

[Cheyenne]

Though some people (Cheyenne??) would probably disagree, I would say that the absolutely insane acceleration of a motorcycle is no laughing matter.

I do disagree, I have found myself giggling in my helmet on my CBR, and it's not even all that quick.

If you look at the motor to rest of the package ratio, it's not surprising that bikes (basically a replica of a racing machine, with some lights and a heavier battery and alternator) are all over street cars.

Just remember that a car at the same level as the bike will be a different story.

Trackpedia shows a 320HP lotus elise at 1:27 and change...pretty close, and still not at the bike's power to weight ratio. Radicals are around 1:20.

Finally...I don't trust that Schwantz guy at all for this test!!!! j/k

I did like his comments about the weight of the car being scary. Think about it...he feels better on a bike, because he can directly affect the outcome of a mistake better than in the car, where momentum can mess with you more...that to me makes a statement about the importance of the control level that you have as a rider/driver, and the confidence it allows.

My CRX lost traction very abruptly, but could be gathered up just as fast. Heavier cars...like a Corvette, or Taurus...stay out of shape what feels like *forever* before slowly coming back in line.

Enchanter, thanks for posting that! Awesome to see the other side of the coin, and done well, with good example vehicles.

Edit: After reading the whole thing, I wish they had run the 'vette on some sticker tires, just to see the effect. I don't think it would have gotten them 8 seconds, but it would be interesting.

 

[Bluenote]

I'm not disagreeing with the contention that many cars are potentially faster than motorcycles, and I fully admit that I haven't encountered the right WRX driver; I'm well aware of the capabilities of a car like that. Anyhow, I didn't say I've never been humbled by a car, only that it's been rare.

My disagreement is with the basic premise of this conversation with no clear definitions to help us. "Real world", as has been said before is a pretty broad definition.
Do we define "real world" as our own experiences only, or do we include all the you-tube vids we've seen, and stories we've heard? (some of which give the nod to the motorcycle, as in that one with the Yamaha 450 vs the WRX)

Are we talking about staged events like those videos, or are we talking about the spontaneous, and usually very short races that often occur on backroads or at stoplights? I think "real world" more accurately defines the latter. In my opinion, the "real world" includes all kinds of conditions, skill levels, vehicle performance, and that while very high performance cars are in general capable of better overall performance than motorcycles, in the random matchups that occur in the real world, I suspect that the motorcyclists usually hold their own fairly well.

We're fairly close to agreement , but keep in mind that in the 'real world' , physics is operative , and as far as potential goes , certain cars are potentially faster through a corner. A dragrace from stoplight to stoplight is a different matter and a car with the potential to smoke you will be fairly obvious.But ordinary cars are absoulutely no challenge for 600cc and up scoot , that said one has to be careful what car one challenges , as I've stated here before I've had a few cars that were capable of eating most bikes , including a '65 Belvedere with a 505 inch Wedge that went *actual* mid nines through the mufflers on DOT approved rubber , but then again as I stated said car was quite an obvious piece , ten point cage , Weld wheels , mini-tubbed ,one seat and a velocity stack through the hood riding a Barry Grant prepped 1050 Dominator , built the damn thing for bracket 1 and overshot the mark by just a bit.

On the other hand think about this , the average guy who chooses you off at a light in his new Mustang ,Camaro SS , Vette , Japanes tuner car etc. may well just be another gearhead who just wants to watch you go ,I seem to get this on occasion when riding the Gixxer.

And if I get into it with a car on a windy road I generally do much as you do i.e. wait for a spot where superior acceleration will take me past in a big hurry , I'm fairly paranoid about following a car in too close and having him spin it in front of me , and *if* I'm holding someone in a car up , I just move the hell over and let them by the same as I do for someone faster on a bike.

But hell what do I know ,I'm old and slow.




B.

 

[Bluenote]

Right, but the guy who owns a $120k car probably wouldn't go crazy with it on the twisties.

I don't know about that one , there's enough folks who actually drive the holy p*** out of such cars to dispute your statement , we see a few up here on 36 now and again.

 

[Aluisious]

Bikes only appear faster in the twisties because sprotbile riders are far more likely to ride like complete maniacs.

Get that maniac behind the wheel of a decent car and it's not much of a contest. Four wheels just beat two in a handling contest.

 

[kell]

A few points in no particular order. Take them whichever way you like

- A bike can use the full width of its lane to square off corners on a 'highway 9' type road, a car only has a couple of feet to straighten out a corner. + 1 to bikes.

- Most guys who can actually ride fast graduate to trackdays or simply keep in in check on the street, the consequences of making a mistake while riding fast are far more likely to be dire then in a car. +1 for riders.

- A minor front wheel skid is no deal in a car, it takes a enormous amount of skill to deal with such a thing on a bike. +1 for the riders who can.

- At least 50% of riders could get in ANY car and make it tires squeal around the first corner you came to, whereas a small fraction of car drivers would be able to lean past 15 degrees without crashing a bike in the first corner whilst shitting their pants. -1 for cars any hillbilly can slide them around.

- A liter bike is certainly potentially faster then virtually any street car money can buy short of $250k, show me a road car on the Isle of Mann TT track verses a stock Gixxer 1000 - It be laughable.

- All these guys comparing lap records of open wheeled race cars seem to think such things qualify as 'cars'. I have news for you, unless you can take a hot Russian in a slinky dress to a fancy restaurant in it, it ain't a car. Its a go-kart on steroids. +1 for hot Russians.

- A stock Gixxer 1000 with a good rider and good tires and 2 seats will do 1:57's at Thunderhill, this is 'evidence and fact' based unlike most anything else in this thread which is simply anecdotal. Can anyone specifically provide any actual evidence that any street legal off the showroom floor 2 seat car (with the Stig in it or not) can do that? And if it can, how much more does it cost?

 

[nazgulnarsil]

this is a dumb question because it only applies to people who can afford $100,000+ cars.

 

[snowflow mfg]

Igor..!!! Long time no see...

as motorcycle vs car, heck, I just have fun watching the comparison..

[YOUTUBE]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ej9MkCSg59w&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ej9MkCSg59w&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

hehehe. I like this.

Hey Igor, did you work at Laguna Seca motogp this year? with USARM?

 

[Bluenote]

A few points in no particular order. Take them whichever way you like

- A bike can use the full width of its lane to square off corners on a 'highway 9' type road, a car only has a couple of feet to straighten out a corner. + 1 to bikes.

- Most guys who can actually ride fast graduate to trackdays or simply keep in in check on the street, the consequences of making a mistake while riding fast are far more likely to be dire then in a car. +1 for riders.

- A minor front wheel skid is no deal in a car, it takes a enormous amount of skill to deal with such a thing on a bike. +1 for the riders who can.

- At least 50% of riders could get in ANY car and make it tires squeal around the first corner you came to, whereas a small fraction of car drivers would be able to lean past 15 degrees without crashing a bike in the first corner whilst shitting their pants. -1 for cars any hillbilly can slide them around.

- A liter bike is certainly potentially faster then virtually any street car money can buy short of $250k, show me a road car on the Isle of Mann TT track verses a stock Gixxer 1000 - It be laughable.

- All these guys comparing lap records of open wheeled race cars seem to think such things qualify as 'cars'. I have news for you, unless you can take a hot Russian in a slinky dress to a fancy restaurant in it, it ain't a car. Its a go-kart on steroids. +1 for hot Russians.

- A stock Gixxer 1000 with a good rider and good tires and 2 seats will do 1:57's at Thunderhill, this is 'evidence and fact' based unlike most anything else in this thread which is simply anecdotal. Can anyone specifically provide any actual evidence that any street legal off the showroom floor 2 seat car (with the Stig in it or not) can do that? And if it can, how much more does it cost?

2 of your first three points are just 'duh no shit sherlock' ones , the third that states that most fast riders 'graduate to trackdays' and implies that nobody quick rides on the street anymore , well I gotta call bullshit , I know too many ex AFM , WERA ,WSMC , AMA and trackday junky types who still ride on the street and do so quite quickly to give aby credence to that one.

In answer to your 'Isle of Man' comment , given the same level of preparation a car would be quicker around the course.

" Open wheel race cars' , now you're building a strawman , the comparison was between the top levels of machinery. And whether you wish to acknowledge the fact or not the outright track records for any track you can name the world round are held by cars.

" 1;57s at T-Hill GSXR1000 etc." , they run doorslammers fairly often at T-Hill , do the research and check the laptimes for yourself , you'll be surprised.


And as far as it goes , your commentary on 'practicality' speaks volumes as to your bias i.e. ' it's not a car unless you can go to dinner in it'. Think a Gixxer 1k is 'practical' do you? It's not , not even close , and it's a hell of a lot closer to being 'race machinery' than your 'average' sports car such as an S2000 or WRX.

And in closing , your implication that sliding a car around is 'easy as eating pie' is also incorrect , if you doubt this then I suggest you go get yourself a drive in a 911 or better yet a 930 and take your foot out of it at the wrong time , best do it on a skid pad though.

Anyway , I've seen this same arguement a thousand times , and someone always heatedly attempts to defend bikes where they really need no defense ,it comes down to basic physics along with actual physically present factors such as the amount of rubber on the road compared to horsepower of the vehicle.

Personally I wish reality were different , but it's not , so I'll just enjoy the power to weight ratio that a bike has and the knowing that the 430 cruising beside me on 5 will be absolutely destroyed by my GSXR 1k if we both honk on it from 65 or 70 , or from a stoplight , or indeed at any speed below a 150. But put us both on 36 with someone that can really drive that 430 behind the wheel and I'm just going to get the hell out of his and hope to get close enough on the straights that I can hear the music of that motor.




B.

 

[sliverstorm]

I've had a couple thoughts cross my mind as a flip through this thread:

1: What about braking? (and/or corner entry speeds) Bikes out accelerate cars most of the time, but can they out brake them? I don't know which one has the leg up here.

2: Downforce seems to be what makes cars win. This sort of seems like cheating to me Like they are defying physics, esp. because the bikes can't. Everything else is shared- bikes can brake, turn, and accelerate. So can cars. Bikes cannot generate downforce though.

3: Everyone talks about how a car has more rubber on the road, thus more contact patch and stuff. Well... Here's something to think about. According to physics, a wider tire doesn't matter. Why? The weight applied to a given square inch of contact patch is halved when you double the size of the contact patch. Half the weight means half the friction. Do the math, and you find the total friction is the same. I still haven't figured out why wider tires are understood to make for more grip. My guess currently is a larger contact patch is more forgiving of imperfections in the track- rocks, holes, etc, even if they are tiny. Another thing to consider: The sideways force fighting to break the grip is much greater in a car, because a car has more mass. 3000lb car should create 6x as much sideways force as a 500lb motorcycle. So, hypothetically, a bike with 1/6th the contact patch of the car should be able to sustain the same g's

 

[ucb]

And in closing , your implication that sliding a car around is 'easy as eating pie' is also incorrect , if you doubt this then I suggest you go get yourself a drive in a 911 or better yet a 930 and take your foot out of it at the wrong time , best do it on a skid pad though.


.

T8 at thill is NOT the place to try this

 

[Brown81]

I've had a couple thoughts cross my mind as a flip through this thread:

1: What about braking? (and/or corner entry speeds) Bikes out accelerate cars most of the time, but can they out brake them? I don't know which one has the leg up here.

Thing is: an 80 year old lady in a late model Lexus w/ ABS will out-brake 99% of all motorcycle riders.

Something to keep in mind when tailgaiting on the Fwy.

 

[sixtytwo]

I've had a couple thoughts cross my mind as a flip through this thread:

1: What about braking? (and/or corner entry speeds) Bikes out accelerate cars most of the time, but can they out brake them? I don't know which one has the leg up here.

There's absolute braking, and then there's safe braking. If you're in a car, you can do threshold braking because there's almost no consequence to having the wheels lock. Hell, you can simply slam on the brakes as hard as you can, and the car will still (eventually) come to a stop.

However, on a motorcycle, you'll likely go down if you lock up the front wheel, because of the inherent reliance on wheel angular momentum for stability. Or, if you brake too hard but the wheel doesn't lock, you'll start to endo.

Those things put severe limitations on the braking performance of a motorcycle.

2: Downforce seems to be what makes cars win. This sort of seems like cheating to me Like they are defying physics, esp. because the bikes can't. Everything else is shared- bikes can brake, turn, and accelerate. So can cars. Bikes cannot generate downforce though.

Why don't we attach a spoiler to a motorcycle and see what happens?

3: Everyone talks about how a car has more rubber on the road, thus more contact patch and stuff. Well... Here's something to think about. According to physics, a wider tire doesn't matter. Why? The weight applied to a given square inch of contact patch is halved when you double the size of the contact patch. Half the weight means half the friction. Do the math, and you find the total friction is the same. I still haven't figured out why wider tires are understood to make for more grip. My guess currently is a larger contact patch is more forgiving of imperfections in the track- rocks, holes, etc, even if they are tiny. Another thing to consider: The sideways force fighting to break the grip is much greater in a car, because a car has more mass. 3000lb car should create 6x as much sideways force as a 500lb motorcycle. So, hypothetically, a bike with 1/6th the contact patch of the car should be able to sustain the same g's

Well, I've actually heard a lot of different reasoning for wider tires. Here's mine: Your reasoning about friction and tires is correct, but only in ideal circumstances where the coefficient of friction is constant. However, asphalt has a non-uniform coefficient of friction. It can be grippier in some areas and looser in others. A larger surface area grabs the imperfections in the road, increasing the effective coefficient of friction.

As for the sideways force generated by a car vs that of a bike, keep in mind that if the bike's tires lose grip, that's going to result in a lowside. If a car's tires loose grip, that's not a problem. If I understand correctly, the entire premise of "drifting" is controlling the car when the wheels are not gripping the road statically.

 

[mhpcto]

Bikes only appear faster in the twisties because sprotbile riders are far more likely to ride like complete maniacs.

Get that maniac behind the wheel of a decent car and it's not much of a contest. Four wheels just beat two in a handling contest.

There are a few riders that could attest to that - going balls out on Hwy 9 in the Lotus, I am faster than most bikes and will keep an equally insane bike rider behind me (or stay with'em if I'm in the rear) - it's pretty much equal at that point.

Although the Lotus acceleration (0-60 at 4.4) is not equal to a liter bike, the fact that I can put the power down earlier than the bike on corner exits makes up for that. It's very hard to shake a 350hp, 2500lbs car with a maniac behind the wheel Cornering speed, especially on entry, is so much higher in the car (with 285 DOT approved track tires - they last about 5K miles) that I have to roll off the throttle to not hit the bike, which gives the bike a slight advantage as the turbo waste gate opens up

As far as the fun factor is concerned, it's about equal when you're really pushing it, but it's bike all the way if you're just going fast minus the insanity part.

Disclaimer: I'm so much older now ... I don't do that insane stuff anymore.

 

[Lesbusa]

2 of your first three points are just 'duh no shit sherlock' ones , the third that states that most fast riders 'graduate to trackdays' and implies that nobody quick rides on the street anymore , well I gotta call bullshit , I know too many ex AFM , WERA ,WSMC , AMA and trackday junky types who still ride on the street and do so quite quickly to give aby credence to that one.

In answer to your 'Isle of Man' comment , given the same level of preparation a car would be quicker around the course.

" Open wheel race cars' , now you're building a strawman , the comparison was between the top levels of machinery. And whether you wish to acknowledge the fact or not the outright track records for any track you can name the world round are held by cars.

" 1;57s at T-Hill GSXR1000 etc." , they run doorslammers fairly often at T-Hill , do the research and check the laptimes for yourself , you'll be surprised.


And as far as it goes , your commentary on 'practicality' speaks volumes as to your bias i.e. ' it's not a car unless you can go to dinner in it'. Think a Gixxer 1k is 'practical' do you? It's not , not even close , and it's a hell of a lot closer to being 'race machinery' than your 'average' sports car such as an S2000 or WRX.

And in closing , your implication that sliding a car around is 'easy as eating pie' is also incorrect , if you doubt this then I suggest you go get yourself a drive in a 911 or better yet a 930 and take your foot out of it at the wrong time , best do it on a skid pad though.

Anyway , I've seen this same arguement a thousand times , and someone always heatedly attempts to defend bikes where they really need no defense ,it comes down to basic physics along with actual physically present factors such as the amount of rubber on the road compared to horsepower of the vehicle.

Personally I wish reality were different , but it's not , so I'll just enjoy the power to weight ratio that a bike has and the knowing that the 430 cruising beside me on 5 will be absolutely destroyed by my GSXR 1k if we both honk on it from 65 or 70 , or from a stoplight , or indeed at any speed below a 150. But put us both on 36 with someone that can really drive that 430 behind the wheel and I'm just going to get the hell out of his and hope to get close enough on the straights that I can hear the music of that motor.

B.

Nice job bringing up the one car in the world that is totally different then ever other car to use as your example.


As far as race track performance goes cars have it all over bikes. In the twisties it's more a matter of who blinks first.

And this subject:

 

[Burning1]

Racing on 9 is a bit like playing chicken. The person willing to take the greatest risk can usually win.

 

[jraice]

Bye bye litrebikes!

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

Hmm...

I am 90 percent certain I saw one roll through my local town the other day...

There is an exotic car dealer around the corner, maybe they snuck it out for the day?

 

[Cheyenne]

Well, I've actually heard a lot of different reasoning for wider tires. Here's mine:... A larger surface area grabs the imperfections in the road, increasing the effective coefficient of friction.

^^^This. The mistake people make with coefficent of friction and wider tires...which people have been making a long time...is that it's not about friction as much as you think.

It's about the surface of the tire physically deforming at the road surface to fill in the small spaces in the pavement and actually "grab" the road, not just use the CoF as it would be if the road surface was smooth like glass.

 

[sixtytwo]

It's about the surface of the tire physically deforming at the road surface to fill in the small spaces in the pavement and actually "grab" the road, not just use the CoF as it would be if the road surface was smooth like glass.

Well, what I was thinking about was the physics equation behind the scene, you know, the one with normal force, the static coefficient of friction, and the frictional force. I just lumped everything into the CoF, but yes, I do understand that it's about the soft rubber filling in the imperfections in the pavement.

 

[Corb]

Reality is the driver/rider makes more of a difference than the machine.

That said street bike vs street car pushed to the limmits Ive see numerous tests were bikes win.

Best one was done in 05' by a car magazine called Speed [a ROAD&TRACK supliment]
It was Doug Chandler riding a stock ZX6R vs a stock C6 Vette driven by Cort Vagner at ButtonWillow
Also Doug riding his stock engine upgraded suspension/brakes ZX10R vs a super modified 589hp Skyline driven also by Cort.
Everything was recorded using a RACELOGIC VBOX III system that uses satellite triungulation to acurately measure 13 parameters.

Lap times
best lap Vette -2'07.12"

best for ZX6R -1'57.76"

best for Skyline-1'58.82"

best for ZX10R-1'53.00"

Noticed that even the stock 600 beat the full slicks AWD barelly street legal car.
Have the mag at home.

 

[kell]

" 1;57s at T-Hill GSXR1000 etc." , they run doorslammers fairly often at T-Hill , do the research and check the laptimes for yourself , you'll be surprised.

B.

I had a quick look at the SCCA lap records at Thunderhill and the SCCA Categories but couldn't see any showroom car that could match the documented 1:57s of the showroom GSXR1000, perhaps I missed it.

So for now I'll assume you are just making things up. Until I can see some evidence to the contrary that a showroom car (with good tires) can match a showroom bike (with good tires).

Open wheeled racers are an irrelevance, since by no practical definition are they anything other then upscale karts. And no doubt about it karts are the fastest vehicles out there on closed courses