Really fast cars v bikes?

[Mastodon2]

LooneyTunes said:

Try one of the more powerful R series Caterhams with an aeroscreen and you are arguably less then a million miles from a bike. OK, it's still not the same but losing a conventional 'screen gives you more of that connection to the surroundings that you get with a bike (and a good chunk of the enjoyment you get from threading together a series of corners).

The sight lines are nowhere near as good but you've got the advantage of then being one slightly bigger mistake away from life changing injuries and that difference can be material if you've got dependents / probably shouldn't still be around as a result of bikes.

Still miss the bikes though...

Funnily enough I've just been out on my GSX-R600 this morning to one of Newcastle's bike dealerships, and they have a Caterham in the showroom, taken as a trade in. I've not driven a Caterham myself and I can appreciate that it's good fun, but it's still not giving you the connection you get from a bike - you're sitting strapped into a chair, pushing levers and using a steering system that is remote compared to the the direct interaction you get on a bike. The steering of the bike is literally in your hands - just handlebars attached to a yoke, that hold the forks, to which connects the wheel, and the balance of the bike can be manipulated by moving your bodyweight around it.

Caterham are making some cars today, not to mention the Ariel Atom V8, that just have brutal, silly acceleration, akin to a sports bike, but as I mentioned earlier that is not the point. Mazda bang on about "Jinba ittai", but the point remains, and will always remain, that you can't lean a car. You can take a little 125 down a undulating, winding road and it can be a riot of laughs in a way that I'd struggle to see any car match.

If I sound anti-car, I'm not, I still dream of driving and owning many cars, but even with my dream cars in the garage, I'd struggle to not take my bike out, if fun or short journey times were a priority. That said, being on a bike when it's wet or cold is st.

[*Al*]

dapearson said:

You haven't lived until you've given a decently powerful bike "the beans" in 2nd and 3rd gears

Very true, I've owned a fair few litre supersports bikes and currently a Suzuki Hayabusa and always get a thrill from the acceleration. Cars although I've had a few relatively quick ones (not super cars!)I rarely get the thrill.

[mikal83]

driving the Chim or my FJR gives a differant thrill, BUT the bike scares me!

[barker22]

av185 said:

T0MMY said:

In general I don't really find bikes any more fun than cars to be honest; I think what you've said is a personal thing, not a univeral truth. They do have a nice challenge to them as it's much harder to go quite fast on a bike than in a car but it's maybe equally challenging to go very fast with either.

Seems strange as to as to why it would be much harder to go 'quite' fast on a bike than in a car.........

I imagine you have never ridden a bike? Or perhaps the opposite and you have ridden all your life?

If the latter then it is easy to forget there is a 'knack' to riding a motorcycle.

I would say probably 90%+ of drivers could jump straight into a supercar and reach 150mph relatively safely in a controlled environment. Now put those same drivers on a sports bike and ask them to do the same. There is more to it than just pinning the throttle.
Wheel slip on a bike requires a bit more finesse to bring under control without incident than in a car where just chopping the throttle generally solves the issue. Hand/footful of brakes in either would result in different outcomes. Even simple slow cornering requires a certain skillset on a bike. Turn the wheel in a car and look the opposite direction of where you want to go, the car goes the way you originally intended. Now try it on a bike. You will end up in a hedge!
This does all add credit to the 'I would kill myself on a bike' brigade and to be fair, there is some truth in it, not so much in the speed but in the techniques required to ride a bike.

[demus24]

Reminds me of this video, Bugatti vs BMW. http://youtu.be/1Zj2h-3AeiM

[anonymous-user]

Mastodon2 said:

but the point remains, and will always remain, that you can't lean a car.

Your clearly just not trying hard enough:

[demus24]

Max_Torque said:

Your clearly just not trying hard enough:

[rehab71]

*Al* said:

dapearson said:

You haven't lived until you've given a decently powerful bike "the beans" in 2nd and 3rd gears

Very true, I've owned a fair few litre supersports bikes and currently a Suzuki Hayabusa and always get a thrill from the acceleration. Cars although I've had a few relatively quick ones (not super cars!)I rarely get the thrill.

I'd love to ride a properly quick bike (would mean getting a licence first!) I've been pilion on a couple of thousand cc bikes and there is nothing like how they accelerate. A good friend of mine has a bike engined kit car with a 1200cc lump in and it's fking fast, I can only imagine the bike with that engine is utterly insane!

[T0MMY]

av185 said:

Seems strange as to as to why it would be much harder to go 'quite' fast on a bike than in a car.........

Mr2Mike said:

I don't agree with that at all, going "quite" fast is easy in either a car or on a bike IME. Riding a powerful bike at 10/10ths is clearly way more risky than a car, and requires a level of skill that relatively few possess. Obviously it takes a high level of skill to drive a car at maximum attack as well, but cars tend to be far more forgiving of minor errors, changes in road surface etc.

Well to clarify I'm talking about laptimes on a trackday (or maybe just absolutely hammering it on a twisty road), not just straight lines!

My point was that just about anyone can push a car to 90% of it's performance but it seems to be much harder to get even 70% out of a bike. Getting to 99% though is probably equally hard for both.

This is pretty apparent if you go to car and bike trackdays. At Cadwell a lot of the riders will be struggling to get under 2 minutes on bikes that are capable of mid to high 1.30 laps. All the cars on the other hand will be within 10% of what they're actually capable of because it just isn't that hard to do that. In both cases though there will be similarly low numbers of drivers/riders that are within a couple of seconds of appropriate lap records as pushing to the absolute limit is tricky with either vehicle.

This is why bike trackdays are split into skill groups and car ones aren't. The speed differentials between the fastest and the slowest would be pretty terrifying on a bike day.

Edited by T0MMY on Saturday 11th October 13:27

[Hasbeen]

dapearson said:

You haven't lived until you've given a decently powerful bike "the beans" in 2nd and 3rd gears

Yes very true, they are great machines.

However you also haven't lived until you have driven a really great handling car somewhere like across the top of Bathurst. When you drive a car that tells you through the steering wheel, just what each end is going to do in the next split second, you become one with it in much the same way as a bike.

This is why I have yet to find a car with a power steering system worth owning. They probably exist, but I've not found one.

Incidentally, the top bikes have only recently equaled the times we were doing around Bathurst in the late 60s in open wheelers, without all that much power, but great handling.

Edited by Hasbeen on Saturday 11th October 17:50

[Corpulent Tosser]

thelawnet said:

I can beat super cars through Chelsea on my pushbike.

Obviously a motorbike is much faster than a car from a to b.

Obviously it would depend on where a and b were !

[av185]

barker22 said:

I imagine you have never ridden a bike? Or perhaps the opposite and you have ridden all your life?

If the latter then it is easy to forget there is a 'knack' to riding a motorcycle.

I would say probably 90%+ of drivers could jump straight into a supercar and reach 150mph relatively safely in a controlled environment. Now put those same drivers on a sports bike and ask them to do the same. There is more to it than just pinning the throttle.
Wheel slip on a bike requires a bit more finesse to bring under control without incident than in a car where just chopping the throttle generally solves the issue. Hand/footful of brakes in either would result in different outcomes. Even simple slow cornering requires a certain skillset on a bike. Turn the wheel in a car and look the opposite direction of where you want to go, the car goes the way you originally intended. Now try it on a bike. You will end up in a hedge!
This does all add credit to the 'I would kill myself on a bike' brigade and to be fair, there is some truth in it, not so much in the speed but in the techniques required to ride a bike.

Am not a biker.......but its interesting this perception of cars being less demanding and skillful to pilot in attack mode which imo is questionable.

Coming 'down' to perhaps supercars or rapid sports cars, the 'progression' from 'analogue' drive by the seat of your pants stuff like older Porsche Turbos and GT2s infamously known as the widowmaker to, say the 'digital' Ferrari Speciale with such flattering driving aids as Side Slip contol has to a degree meant car driving skills have been lost in the name of progress. So to truly attack in say a 997 GT2 at warp speeds you would need to be on it big time with a very fine margin between you and the hedge I.e. similar perhaps in many ways to the unquestionable skills required on a bike at the limit.........

[Baryonyx]

LooneyTunes said:

Try one of the more powerful R series Caterhams with an aeroscreen and you are arguably less then a million miles from a bike.

Ultimately though in the Catherham, you're still sitting in a seat and twiddling a little wheel in front of you, considerably further removed from road than you are on a bike.

[Motorrad]

Baryonyx said:

Ultimately though in the Catherham, you're still sitting in a seat and twiddling a little wheel in front of you, considerably further removed from road than you are on a bike.

Exactly. Anyone comparing 4 wheels to 2 just hasn't got a clue.

Bikes are more visceral, connect you more with the environment and key in all your senses to the experience. Driving a car is like fking wearing a rubber- except you're just watching a porno and using your non-dominant hand . Riding a bike is like going bareback with a porn star.

edit to add: up the wrong 'un

[Joey Ramone]

I love bikes, and nothing on 4 wheels can compare to the feeling of belting along on a summer evening on an insanely powerful motorcycle. The sense of freedom and fun is indescribable.

Doesn't stop me desperately wanting an R35 though. Because cars are fun in a different way. And their blend of practicality and performance simply can't be ignored.

[izzzzythedog]

wrong bike

Swedish built gsxr1100 with twin turbo and nitrous , cant remember the name of the company but they supplied this in the 1990`s as a new bike . Given the smaller market of bike sales and given were looking on million quid cars so elitism all the way then i would love to see any car try to keep up even without the laughing gas.
Either way i wouldnt call it a fair test given a bike can never get traction off the line so the bike will always be at a disadvantage

[T0MMY]

Motorrad said:

Exactly. Anyone comparing 4 wheels to 2 just hasn't got a clue.

I'm not sure how you can say I'd have no clue on this issue given I both ride sportsbikes and drive sportscars. Some cars are every bit as visceral as bikes.

[Motorrad]

T0MMY said:

I'm not sure how you can say I'd have no clue on this issue given I both ride sportsbikes and drive sportscars. Some cars are every bit as visceral as bikes.

They don't engage all your senses at the the same time.
Wasn't particularly aiming that at you but as far as I'm concerned the only time I've ever smelt fear was on a bike and it was coming from me!

[T0MMY]

Motorrad said:

They don't engage all your senses at the the same time.
Wasn't particularly aiming that at you but as far as I'm concerned the only time I've ever smelt fear was on a bike and it was coming from me!

I actually feel quite removed from the world wearing leathers and a helmet, compared to being sat in a kitcar though.

[TobyLerone]

thelawnet said:

Obviously a motorbike is much faster than a car from a to b.

Nope.

Well, sort of not.

A bike, around track X that flatters a bike, a bike will be faster. Around track Y that flatters cars, it will not.

Granted, £15k will get you a LOT more bike than car (brand new anyway), and over short distances and in congestion, a bike is faster A-B too.

However, over large distances, in anything other than warm, dry weather, or with any luggage, a car is faster.

For a start, fatigue is FAR reduced in a car, more space, more comfort, a greater range (a biggy) and far FAR less susceptible to road conditions and weather issues too - riding a bike fast in the wet requires far greater skill than a car.

But a bike is usually FAR more fun