Really fast cars v bikes?
Discussion
jjr1 said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfLqa4vlmFI
A moral victory for the bike and a surprisingly slow Porsche......
Is it? Faster to 60, near identical to a 100, faster to 200 and a faster terminal speed? A moral victory for the bike and a surprisingly slow Porsche......
dapearson said:
I have raced caterhams on/off for about 10 yrs with a fair bit of success. I have had probably 3 or 4 spins/offs in that time and no serious car damage. Never hit a barrier. Only been in the gravel twice.
I have ridden bikes on the road for a little longer. Normally 10k-20k miles per year and up until this year ridden in all weathers.
My first track outing on a bike last month and i binned it after about 25 mins...
Blimey, hope you're ok...if you don't mind me asking what happened?I have ridden bikes on the road for a little longer. Normally 10k-20k miles per year and up until this year ridden in all weathers.
My first track outing on a bike last month and i binned it after about 25 mins...
jamieduff1981 said:
To be honest, not really because that's school-level physics of power to weight ratios. I used to waste a lot of time playing with r/c models. The little single cylinder 2-strokes and 4 strokes rev higher than motorbikes and also are not as attractive as a V12. I suppose it's something you might get more in to if you can get in to it in the first place. I see a motorbike as being a push bike with an r/c model engine attached. The fact it costs the same as a Hyundai i10 is because you have bought a simpler collection of moving parts than you'd get on a car.
All I'm saying is that there is much more depth to the machine in a car.
Of course that's opinion based on your understanding and you are entitled to it. However, to say it's cheaper/same price as a Hyundai i10 because you get fewer moving parts is a ridiculous argument. All I'm saying is that there is much more depth to the machine in a car.
The engineering that goes into a modern superbike is incredible as demonstrated at the IOM TT. Back in 2000 you would have to get hold of a factory prepared RC45 race bike to stand a chance of winning the senior TT, then David Jeffries rocked up on a Yamaha R1 and wiped the floor with everybody. Now the superstock-class bike can lap as fast as a superbike in spite of all the mechanical differences between the classes. That's the motorcycling equivalent of racing your Hyundai against an F1 car!
The S1000r is an incredible machine that will make over 200bhp all day with little more than a race exhaust. Take a look at this and tell me you aren't impressed with the engineering:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsa6kq-qqIE
jamieduff1981 said:
A different angle - and it's not worth its own thread so I'll ask it here.
Does anyone have an enthusiasm for a car or a bike because of the mechanics of the machine being part of the attraction?
Personally I find cars fascinating due to their relative complexity. Even if I'm a long way from the top tier of drivers, I get a lot of pleasure from driving and thinking about all the myriad of mechanical parts working together in all of the various circumstances one encounters driving along.
By contrast, a bike to me looks like a fork, a frame and a swing arm. As a mechanical machine it doesn't interest me in the slightest, and as such I have no interest in riding one - especially because I lack the invincibility cortex of the brain that I'd need to push a bike as hard as many in this thread claim is required to get the thrill out of them. I'd just be riding along, slowly, wearing hi-viz clothing on a machine that I found about as intriguing as a washing machine's belt driven drum mechanism.
Does anyone have an enthusiasm for a car or a bike because of the mechanics of the machine being part of the attraction?
Personally I find cars fascinating due to their relative complexity. Even if I'm a long way from the top tier of drivers, I get a lot of pleasure from driving and thinking about all the myriad of mechanical parts working together in all of the various circumstances one encounters driving along.
By contrast, a bike to me looks like a fork, a frame and a swing arm. As a mechanical machine it doesn't interest me in the slightest, and as such I have no interest in riding one - especially because I lack the invincibility cortex of the brain that I'd need to push a bike as hard as many in this thread claim is required to get the thrill out of them. I'd just be riding along, slowly, wearing hi-viz clothing on a machine that I found about as intriguing as a washing machine's belt driven drum mechanism.
Aside from the pleasure of driving (which is the main reason I'm on here - I love driving), I do like the engineering side, but like the poster above I actually prefer bikes to cars on that front (unless the car is a single seater or dedicated race car). The reason for that is that I like design purity and focus, and a superbike is all about that, with nothing unecessary and very little in the way of mass-market compromises. This is also why I posted the Evo videos a few pages ago, because they're a more true comparison of speed between bikes and cars - once you get to something like a Panigale or 1000RR, five letters in a name is the only comparison between a superbike and a 'super'car - most modern supercars are actually GTs (in my humble opinion). The purity and focus in a quick bike is like that of a single seater, and both are what I love from an engineering perspective. This extends to a practical level as well - I don't gain much pleasure at all from working on road cars (it's a necessity when they break, but for servicing I just pay a garage to do it for me and go and do something more interesting with my time), but I love racing cars.I've been following this debate with interest.
I like fast cars and fast bikes. I passed my motorcycle test in 1983 and have always had bikes alongside my cars.
At the moment I have an E92 M3 and a Fireblade.
I have done lots of car and bike track days.
In the light of my experience I feel I am fairly qualified to comment on the bikes vs cars debate. Obviously they each have their pros and cons and there are occasions when only a car will do the job and vice versa. For example a long motorway trip or a trip with passengers and luggage is definitely one for the car whereas a commute through heavy rush-hour traffic in London would be one for the bike.
However I have to say that if I want to go for a fun, solo drive on a sunny Sunday morning it would always be the bike. The rider feels more connected to a bike than a driver is to a car and the rider is part of the overall package unlike in a car (a road car anyway) where the driver is closer to being a passenger. The bike also demands more focused attention than a car. The acceleration on a superbike is simply astounding and cannot really be described unless one has experienced it. There are separate front and rear brake systems and one has to decide how much braking force to apportion to each without overwhelming either of the tyres. Cornering hard on a bike is great fun but is a delicate balancing operation where the consequences of getting it wrong are far more severe than in a car. The net result of all these factors is that, in my opinion, a bike is more fun than a car when the object of the drive is fun. I cannot deny that the danger factor probably also plays a part in making it more thrilling (for me anyway).
I am not qualified to comment on riding bikes or cars at the level of the top racers but I would submit that at the level of most of us on here riding a bike fast would be more difficult and rewarding than doing the same in a car.
In summary, cars and bikes can both be great fun and if you have the opportunity you should try both...
I like fast cars and fast bikes. I passed my motorcycle test in 1983 and have always had bikes alongside my cars.
At the moment I have an E92 M3 and a Fireblade.
I have done lots of car and bike track days.
In the light of my experience I feel I am fairly qualified to comment on the bikes vs cars debate. Obviously they each have their pros and cons and there are occasions when only a car will do the job and vice versa. For example a long motorway trip or a trip with passengers and luggage is definitely one for the car whereas a commute through heavy rush-hour traffic in London would be one for the bike.
However I have to say that if I want to go for a fun, solo drive on a sunny Sunday morning it would always be the bike. The rider feels more connected to a bike than a driver is to a car and the rider is part of the overall package unlike in a car (a road car anyway) where the driver is closer to being a passenger. The bike also demands more focused attention than a car. The acceleration on a superbike is simply astounding and cannot really be described unless one has experienced it. There are separate front and rear brake systems and one has to decide how much braking force to apportion to each without overwhelming either of the tyres. Cornering hard on a bike is great fun but is a delicate balancing operation where the consequences of getting it wrong are far more severe than in a car. The net result of all these factors is that, in my opinion, a bike is more fun than a car when the object of the drive is fun. I cannot deny that the danger factor probably also plays a part in making it more thrilling (for me anyway).
I am not qualified to comment on riding bikes or cars at the level of the top racers but I would submit that at the level of most of us on here riding a bike fast would be more difficult and rewarding than doing the same in a car.
In summary, cars and bikes can both be great fun and if you have the opportunity you should try both...
The physicality and subtlety of a number of different inputs (beyond turning the bars, throttle, gears and brakes) of the human-machine interface is part of the fascination with bikes. To complicate matters, the rider is also the "bodywork".
Those who have never tried to ride a bike briskly or ride well in poor conditions will not really appreciate it.
Those who have never tried to ride a bike briskly or ride well in poor conditions will not really appreciate it.
Renn Sport said:
Coming into this rather late but I have to say I have read this thread with a lot of interest…
I am foremost a car guy but the last few years it’s been all about bikes. I am fairly handy at peddling a car (in my most humble keyboard strokes), however the level of skill it takes to pilot a motorcycle at speed is a skill and talent that would boggle the mind of a mere ‘driver’!
I am sure the Chris Harris is consider a reasonable driver, however ask him about stepping it up on two wheels and I am sure he’d confirm the talent levels are on the other end of the scale.
Body weight, body position, bike pitch, trail braking, lean angle, counter steering input and positive throttle control are skills that require experience and a degree of talent.
If you don’t believe or cannot understand then you need to try it. I am not talking about riding at an Harley pace or plodding 125 commuter, I am talking about when you’re on it!
Be warned bikes are like cocaine… its an addictive habit.
I must admit riding my Fireblade on the road is not a lot less rewarding the riding on the track and is fraught with more danger. Riding fast on the road doesn’t do it for me anymore…
As I said before though, it's much harder to go quite fast on a bike than to go quite fast in a car but equally hard to go very fast. Someone with very little talent indeed could probably get within 80%, maybe even 90% of the time of an F1 driver in a road car round a circuit but no way could a similarly inept biker get that close to a MotoGP rider. However, to get within say 98% of a top level rider or driver is in my opinion just as hard in a car as it is on a bike. Nearly all the skills you've mentioned need to be used to drive a car on the limit, it's just that most drivers don't get near that level so maybe aren't even aware of the level of finesse suddenly required to snatch an extra tenth of a second here and there. I am foremost a car guy but the last few years it’s been all about bikes. I am fairly handy at peddling a car (in my most humble keyboard strokes), however the level of skill it takes to pilot a motorcycle at speed is a skill and talent that would boggle the mind of a mere ‘driver’!
I am sure the Chris Harris is consider a reasonable driver, however ask him about stepping it up on two wheels and I am sure he’d confirm the talent levels are on the other end of the scale.
Body weight, body position, bike pitch, trail braking, lean angle, counter steering input and positive throttle control are skills that require experience and a degree of talent.
If you don’t believe or cannot understand then you need to try it. I am not talking about riding at an Harley pace or plodding 125 commuter, I am talking about when you’re on it!
Be warned bikes are like cocaine… its an addictive habit.
I must admit riding my Fireblade on the road is not a lot less rewarding the riding on the track and is fraught with more danger. Riding fast on the road doesn’t do it for me anymore…
Incidentally I find it just as nervy driving right on the edge as riding right on the edge. I don't seem to make allowance for the actual medical consequences, just see both as "crashing".
Edited by T0MMY on Wednesday 15th October 16:20
Tommy do you ride? Have you ridden a bike fast and I mean corner speed with lean angle?
I don't think you have otherwise you wouldn't have this opinion its an equal skill. Its simply not. I understand this will make some of the car only drivers feel defensive... buts its the truth.
Also the sophistication of a car intervenes for a drivers lack of skill/talent (whatever) a bike your skill and talent are exposed.
Powerslides, left foot brake, heel and toe, oversteer and all that is simple in a car, when compared to skills riders employ.
Mark Webber has been quoted in saying that the level of Motorcycle racers requires a ridiculous levels of talent.
I don't think you have otherwise you wouldn't have this opinion its an equal skill. Its simply not. I understand this will make some of the car only drivers feel defensive... buts its the truth.
Also the sophistication of a car intervenes for a drivers lack of skill/talent (whatever) a bike your skill and talent are exposed.
Powerslides, left foot brake, heel and toe, oversteer and all that is simple in a car, when compared to skills riders employ.
Mark Webber has been quoted in saying that the level of Motorcycle racers requires a ridiculous levels of talent.
I think Tommy is correct.
To be "the best" requires being "the best" amongst other people. Different activities require different skills, and the basics of some activities are easier to grasp and some are more risky, but being "the best" is Still being better than other people.
Is being a top football player "harder"?than being superb at skiing? Rugby? Squash? Violin playing? Gymnastics?
To be "the best" requires being "the best" amongst other people. Different activities require different skills, and the basics of some activities are easier to grasp and some are more risky, but being "the best" is Still being better than other people.
Is being a top football player "harder"?than being superb at skiing? Rugby? Squash? Violin playing? Gymnastics?
MC Bodge said:
I think Tommy is correct.
To be "the best" requires being "the best" amongst other people. Different activities require different skills, and the basics of some activities are easier to grasp and some are more risky, but being "the best" is Still being better than other people.
Is being a top football player "harder"?than being superb at skiing? Rugby? Squash? Violin playing? Gymnastics?
It's not that, the question is how much more technical it is to ride a bike vs driving a car. I think the difference is pretty big?To be "the best" requires being "the best" amongst other people. Different activities require different skills, and the basics of some activities are easier to grasp and some are more risky, but being "the best" is Still being better than other people.
Is being a top football player "harder"?than being superb at skiing? Rugby? Squash? Violin playing? Gymnastics?
Renn Sport said:
Tommy do you ride? Have you ridden a bike fast and I mean corner speed with lean angle?
Bit cheeky that but anyway, I don't race as I'm too poor but from my trackday lap times I'd say I'd be at a decent club racer level so quick compared to the average trackdayer. I was always quicker than a friend of mine that came 3rd in his novice season in the EMRA 600s class and now races in Thundersport GB. Here's me draped in leather...you asked for it...
The better question is have you ever driven a car very hard, I mean within a few percent of what it would be capable of in anyone's hands? It does suddenly become harder to extract extra time as you get to the sharp end, I really don't think I'm talking out of my arse here but maybe it's just my own experience of these things.
T0MMY said:
Renn Sport said:
Tommy do you ride? Have you ridden a bike fast and I mean corner speed with lean angle?
Bit cheeky that but anyway, I don't race as I'm too poor but from my trackday lap times I'd say I'd be at a decent club racer level so quick compared to the average trackdayer. I was always quicker than a friend of mine that came 3rd in his novice season in the EMRA 600s class and now races in Thundersport GB. Here's me draped in leather...you asked for it...The better question is have you ever driven a car very hard, I mean within a few percent of what it would be capable of in anyone's hands? It does suddenly become harder to extract extra time as you get to the sharp end, I really don't think I'm talking out of my arse here but maybe it's just my own experience of these things.
For what it's worth I agree with T0MMY. At an enthusiast level it's harder to ride a bike fast than a car but right at the top level it's probably a similar level of (extremely rare) skill.
Biker's Nemesis said:
That's a BTCC car vs a BSB...hardly the best comparison.I'm quicker round Cadwell on my '98 ZX6R (low 1.40s) than in my '93 MX5 (1.49) but that's because it's a slow car! I'm actually curious to see how much car I need to beat my bike time...I think my MNR Vortx might do it when it's finally track ready. Maybe I'll make a thread on that with a video comparison of the laps
Edited by T0MMY on Wednesday 15th October 18:05
Prof Prolapse said:
Why?
Because a British Superbike is a hell of a lot closer to a MotoGP bike than a BTCC car is to an F1 car. Superbikes are basically the second fastest racing class that exists for bikes whereas BTCC cars...aren't. If the point is to show that bike laptimes can be quicker than some forms of racing car then that's hardly difficult (like my comparison with an MX5). The point is, are the best bikes ever quicker than the best cars. Clearly cars with significant downforce have a huge advantage and nothing is beating F1 so for interest we could say bike vs fastest car series without major downforce, to make it closer.Edited by T0MMY on Wednesday 15th October 18:32
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff