RE: Isle of Man TT with Mark Higgins
Discussion
Use Psychology said:
'appropriately modified'
How do you suggest they stay firmly planted on the ground at high-speed over undulations in the road far larger than anything you see on hillclimb circuits, and for that matter land without causing damage? Because bikes don't rely on aero to remain planted, they can have a great deal more compliance in their suspension. You run a car high, you lose any under-body aero benefits. You run it low, you'll ground it on jumps and risk serious damage or a massive accident.the simple fact is, as established by Rob F (I think) last year (or the year before?) there is no stretch of tarmac anywhere on which both cars and bikes run where bikes are quicker than the cars. to expect the IOM to be the exception flies in the face of all evidence. yes it's very nice that bikes can do the TT course, etc. etc. etc., but the reason they are faster than cars so far is that cars haven't really had a go at it.
Use Psychology said:
the bikes don't stay planted, do they? they lift front wheels and come off the ground all over the place.
Thats my point. The bikes don't need to stay on the road surface in order to make the fastest progress possible. Dedicated race cars would have a choice between sacrificing aerodynamic grip by raising suspension in order to carry additional speed over bumps, slowing for bumps to avoid grounding out on landing and causing damage/an accident, or running the risk of binning it every time the wheels lift from the ground. There are plenty of examples of pretty massive accidents in aerodynamics-dependent prototype racers caused as a direct result of them leaving the ground.Also, having the front wheel on a bike with no active aerodymanic aids lift is singificantly less risky than doing the same in a car with the aforementioned aids.
I'd think a tarmac spec rally car with turbo restictors removed and appropriately geared for some of the longer straights would be in a with a good shout of posting a very good time.
1) Acceleration - Same as a bikes
2) Top speed, depending on gearing and aero could be made to be the same or reasonably close.
3) Braking and Cornering - Do I even need to compare the two? Car wins and by some margin
4) Bumps\magical TT road surface which apparently means a car will get grounded\ stuck on the first hill or dip. Err have you seen some of the surfaces that rally cars drive on? As for jumps, do I need to post some pics of rally cars getting the kind of air that a race bike could only dream of?
While I admire the huge nads it takes to peddle a bike round the TT, the only reason a car hasn't gone faster round it is because they haven't had a good go at it yet.
(Always love adding fuel to the fire)
1) Acceleration - Same as a bikes
2) Top speed, depending on gearing and aero could be made to be the same or reasonably close.
3) Braking and Cornering - Do I even need to compare the two? Car wins and by some margin
4) Bumps\magical TT road surface which apparently means a car will get grounded\ stuck on the first hill or dip. Err have you seen some of the surfaces that rally cars drive on? As for jumps, do I need to post some pics of rally cars getting the kind of air that a race bike could only dream of?
While I admire the huge nads it takes to peddle a bike round the TT, the only reason a car hasn't gone faster round it is because they haven't had a good go at it yet.
(Always love adding fuel to the fire)
DanDC5 said:
caine100 said:
To beat the bikes you'd need a driver who is willing to die to prove a point and something like this:
So the driver of that then. He seems to be on a death wish everytime he drives up Pikes Peak 
rhinochopig said:
Mmmm...thought we'd avoided this debate this year. <slowly backs out and closes door quietly behind him>
I love this time of year, The TT, BTCC, Le Mans coming soon, Wimbledon on its way and lots of people on the internets getting very angry re-hashing the same old arguments.
omgus said:
I love this time of year, The TT, BTCC, Le Mans coming soon, Wimbledon on its way and lots of people on the internets getting very angry re-hashing the same old arguments.
I thought it was decided last year that bikes can straight line a lot of the sections where a car being wider would not be able to? I think the TT is the exception to the rule that a BIKE is faster by the narrow nature of its roads.
Are'nt cars technically able to compete in the TT anyway?
Are'nt cars technically able to compete in the TT anyway?
Edited by cptsideways on Thursday 7th June 18:52
Guvernator said:
..... because they haven't had a good go at it yet.
Why havent they, failure is always an option here against the big bikes, not good for the brand ? It is weird.The superstock 1000s do a 127mph lap. So what standard road car could match that. Not sure I can think of one. I would like to see what a GTR could lap in.
Guvernator said:
1) Acceleration - Same as a bikes
you funny !
Use Psychology said:
ok, we'll just mount the aero to the unsprung part of the car and run two chassis (the bodywork on the hubs, ground effect you want, the suspension can have decent travel then. problem solved.
go on then , do it !
tight5 said:
Guvernator said:
1) Acceleration - Same as a bikes
you funny !
DanDC5 said:
Not sure about a WRC car, but a top spec Rallycross car would be with it to about 80-90ish. Sure Liam Doran's C4 was timed at something like 2.2 to 60. I know short gearing helps on that one but even with longer gearing it should still be close. it just won't have the top speed to match the bikes.
The acceleration required would probably be from 80 - 170 (its virtually all mega high speed). I wonder what the difference is in that range between the cars and bikes.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff