IOM car speed

[RobM77]

kiteless said:

I'm mindful of one thing. Braking.

Even on hot flying laps, with tyres up to temperature, they fly down Bray Hill at ca. 200mph then start braking for Quarter Bridge. And seem to brake very early. And I reckon a sorted car (like a 962 or a Radical SR-8LM) would brake for that corner way, way later than the bike. This would hold true for other big braking points such as The Creg.

I can't find the article now, but I've got a 0-100-0 from Autocar where they invite a bike along. The 0-100 time is quicker than most road cars (about 5.5 seconds if I remember rightly), although slower than most race cars (even a Formula Renault can get under 5 seconds to 100, and obviously F3, F3000 and F1 are much quicker still). However, the braking was where the biggest differences were. The bike they had got from 100-0 a little slower than a Ford Focus, whereas obviously performance road cars were much quicker. However, racing cars are a whole different kettle of fish. The amount of time gained in some of the big braking areas at the TT would be very significant indeed.

[RobM77]

Rude-boy said:

Lets be honest, there is only one way to find out RACE!!! .

You know this is the first time I can recall every trying to fight the bike corner and I suspect it may be the last as I may be getting the feeling I could be fighting a losing battle .

racingsnake said:

Hope this doesn't sound like top trumping and sorry if it does but I'm a roads engineer...

Not at all, but you know how to piss on a man's chips .

It shouldn't be a matter of fighting a corner should it? Personally, I couldn't give a toss which is quicker, I just defend the truth, and from the lap times I've seen (and shared with you on this thread) this is a very clear cut thing.

Rude-boy said:

So I think where we are coming to is that, other than the rarefied air of SR8's and the like, almost any stock bike with a good engine would be quicker around the course than a 'stock' car.

There may be one or two very special road cars which could be quick enough to beat a top spec stock bike and possibly the odd race bike.

A full on, event in mind, race car could be faster than a Senior TT race bike but whilst between us I am sure we could find a driver with sufficient skill and lack of imagination to try to prove it finding someone which a car capable of doing so who would be prepared to lend it to them and getting the permission to even try it might prove a little tricky

Ride and drive safe this weekend all!

I was purely talking about racing cars and racing bikes. Road cars have four seats, full leather, air con and other such things and are meant for going to the shops and back in safety. The raison d'etre of a Yamaha R1 is totally different from even a Porsche 911 or Nissan GTR.

On the subject of road cars (firmly off topic as far as I'm concerned), you're right about the relative performance of road machines - around short tracks a few special road cars will equal or better a fast bike (I've seen lap times showing this for things like the Radical SR3, Caterham R500, Noble M400 etc compared with R1s and Fireblades etc), whereas as the 'ring times prove (and Pond's time on the TT course), on a big flowing track like the 'ring or the IOM TT, the balance is tipped in favour of the cars (the acceleration advantage is minimised when you have fast sections).

Nevertheless, I was purely talking about racing cars with big sticky slicks and wings - things that pull well over 1g in turns and under braking.

[Welshbeef]

Does anyone on ph live in ion if they do what car you got and can you please do a full on 4am run

[racingsnake]

I could get over next weekend with a highly tuned Vitesse.

It wouldn't really strengthen my pro car argument though as my current ones a 1964 Triumph Vitesse which won't really be representative of the automotive worlds best contempory racing technology lol.

BUT BRING IT ON PONDY HERE WE COME!

Edited by racingsnake on Friday 16th July 20:24

[kiteless]

RobM77 said:

The amount of time gained in some of the big braking areas at the TT would be very significant indeed.

That's my thoughts. I suspect that a prototype LM car with ground effect could just lift-off for the right-hander at the Creg. Now that would be something to see

Having said all that, I'll always prefer to see the bikes on the TT

[freecar]

Welshbeef said:

freecar said:

Welshbeef said:

freecar said:

Welshbeef said:

Note Im not talking about smashing the 130mph time here - which a car may well do - just hammering the 100mph average by that vitesse 2.7ltr v6 n/a

Guys, calm down, he's admitted to the trollery! To answer your question yes a newer car could beat the old car's time! FFS

Trollery = feckwit um thanks for that

Let's face it, you were trying to start the car v bike age old row, it didn't work properly so you changed it to a totally pointless question. One that isn't worth even answering.

I don't care for riding bikes I do enjoy watching bike racing. Care to classify who's bed you sleep in

What planet are you on? Who's bed am I in? I love cars and bikes and have ridden 600 cc superbikes and driven fast cars. Doesn't change the fact that you were trying (and succeeding) at starting the old car vs bike IOM lap debate. When caught out you tried to say you were asking about the 100mph lap record which is frankly retarded as a golf gti would probably be able to do it today.

You carry on though, successfull troll is successfull!

[anonymous-user]

right, i've been doing some sums, based on the comparison between 600cc bikes and 600cc sidecars

assumptions:
1) both vehicles are on their regulation minimum class weight limits
2) both engines make the same power
3) riders/ passengers weight 75kg each

bike, 128.8 mph lap, 242.4 kg total mass
sidecar 116.7 mph lap, 298.5 kg total mass


so the sidecar has a 23% mass penalty, but that only results in a 9.4% reduction in lap speed.


this means that the improvements in cornering and braking, offset by the ability to use "straight lining" to smooth out the corners is worth something like 14% on average speed


if we assume that the 600cc engines make cica 130bhp, the bike has 536bhp/ton (with rider) and the sidecar has 436bhp/ton (with rider&passenger)


aero drag will be similar, with the bike having a high drag coefficient but a smaller frontal area and the sidecar being slippier but larger FA
The side car will have better traction, but more weight to accelerate so will be slower out of all but the slowest corners
The side car will deffinately brake harder than the bike
The side car will pull more lateral G around the corners
Both vehicles will be similar over bumps


if we assume that a typical sporting, but non-aero car, can brake and corner like the sidecar (seems reasonable), if it has over 400bhp/ton should match the sidecar speed record, as the car isnt going to be significantly wider than the sidecar (think caterham R500 for example)

so, the Pond 827 100mph lap, i would imagine that the car was about 1250kg (1400 is listed as kerb for 827) and say they managed to find 210bhp (tops!!) thats only 175bhp/ton to get 100mph average!

[RobM77]

Don't forget that the sidecar only has one front wheel, so half the braking capacity, and probably less cornering too.

[anonymous-user]

RobM77 said:

Don't forget that the sidecar only has one front wheel, so half the braking capacity, and probably less cornering too.

not really true, as with only 1 front wheel it can only generate half the force of say a car braking, but as it only weighs 300kg, it only needs too. The braking limit on a motorbike is set by the height of the CofG and it's wheelbase, only so hard it can brake before you do a stoppie!

The sidecar has the CofG of a snake i suspect in comparison!!

Also the side car has a massive cornering advantage throught being able to shift nearly 30% of it's mass to the inside of the corner, well, assumming the passenger is doing the right thing. This will massively reduce lateral weight transfer to it's advantage.

I suspect something like a caterham on slicks will only outstop a sidecar on slicks by a few percent.


Having just watched the Pond Rover video, i can't really see all the "bumps" mentioned earlier, looks damm smooth too me, and compared to some hill climbs/rally stages it's really wide too!

[shoestring7]

shoestring7 said:

Gun said:

whereas anything but a high down force race car would need to slow down for them.

This being the key point. A proper race car with slicks and wings is going to make any bike look slow on any track, bumps or narrowness will not make any difference. The incredible speed of some of the single seater hillclimb cars bears this out.

However, its not going to happen at the IOM, the car would just be too fast; those flat out sections on the mountain would be insanely quick.

As for road cars; argue away.

SS7

This is why:

F1 car lateral: ~4.5g, braking: >4g
MotoGP lateral ~1.8g braking ~1.8g


SS7

[Welshbeef]

I'd like to thank everyone posting on this thread lots of substance rather than waffle. Lots of discussion on the real issues and thankfully people stepping back from just saying one will be quicker without any reasoning apart from general hunch.

[racingsnake]

Best debated grown up thread in yonks - thanks gents!

[DangerousMike]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMqJ_fpPNIs

[racingsnake]

That took the bridge pretty well - virtually.
Cool stuff though very clever it's a pretty accurate portrayal that.

Edited by racingsnake on Saturday 17th July 10:08

[GC8]

liner33 said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WL-7JfsCpBQ&pla...

Seen this video then??

The exact specs of the Tony Pod car are still discussed today few people know for sure

TPs contrubution seems to be overlooked too. I know that he was a bit dull, but that drive was every bit as captivating as a record setting on-board lap with Steve Hislop!

The 'Cars Vs. Bikes' debate surfaces regularly here, but posters'd be less quick to suppose that a car would be quicker after watching Tony Ponds 100mph lap. Id be amazed if any car could up that by 30%.

With regards to the second attempt car being more trick than was advertised, Im not convinced. The times are broadly in line with the 1988 attempt car, which was heavier, and nearly made it.....

[hairykrishna]

GC8 said:

The 'Cars Vs. Bikes' debate surfaces regularly here, but posters'd be less quick to suppose that a car would be quicker after watching Tony Ponds 100mph lap. Id be amazed if any car could up that by 30%.

I've watched it, and I'd be astonished if a modern and quicker car couldn't. He's flat out at the fairly pedestrian top speed for long sections of it, it doesn't accelerate that fast out of the corners and he has to brake fairly early. Obviously it looks like it requires superhuman driving talent but all onboard WRC footage looks like that and there's no shortage of rally drivers.

I'll issue the same challenge I did last time this thread came up - can any of the 'bikes are faster' camp name any courses, of any type, where the bikes are faster than the cars? The only suggestion last time was a full on moto X course, massive dirt jumps and all. A very fast, track prepped, road car would be as quick as the bikes. A full on slicks and wings single seater would absolutely obliterate them.

[anonymous-user]

GC8 said:

Id be amazed if any car could up that by 30%.

really? i'd be amazed if a car couldnt up that by 30%, that poor old 827 couldnt pull the skin off a rice pudding!!! watch the video, it's only quick after about 3 miles of gaining momentum!

something like an R500 would destroy it in every respect!

i would expect a 1300kg 200bhp 827 to get to 100mph in probably circa 18 secs, whereas something like a 911 turbo can easily do it in sub 9. thats a whole hill of beans faster.

Also, look at the ride heights and suspension set up, the size of the tyres and brakes, i bet a modern saloon car like an M3 would easily pull 10% more lateral G and probably 20% more on brakes (when on slicks like the rover was)

[RobM77]

Max_Torque said:

GC8 said:

Id be amazed if any car could up that by 30%.

really? i'd be amazed if a car couldnt up that by 30%, that poor old 827 couldnt pull the skin off a rice pudding!!! watch the video, it's only quick after about 3 miles of gaining momentum!

something like an R500 would destroy it in every respect!

i would expect a 1300kg 200bhp 827 to get to 100mph in probably circa 18 secs, whereas something like a 911 turbo can easily do it in sub 9. thats a whole hill of beans faster.

Also, look at the ride heights and suspension set up, the size of the tyres and brakes, i bet a modern saloon car like an M3 would easily pull 10% more lateral G and probably 20% more on brakes (when on slicks like the rover was)

The 827 is utterly pathetic . And then consider than something like a 996TT is utterly pathetic compared with a moderate single seater like a Formula Renault (0-100 in 4.9, 3G in the corners, sequential dog box), which in turn is pathetic compared to a Formula One car or Le Mans LMP1 car.

[KB_S1]

Reading this I keep thinking back to Chris Harris's article in evo a few months back that featured McCrae's Prodrive 001 Impreza.

That was a 10 year old, road legal (yet WRC restricted power) car and he mentioned that it demolished the likes of a 430 Scud, 911 GT3RS and Exige 260 on B-Roads. That was despite it having an inappropriate suspension setup.
That car had 'only' 300BHP and weighed over 1200kg.

The difference between a racing car and even very fast road cars is huge.

Bring that up to date with a current WRC car and the gap would be huge again.
Ditch the turbo intake restrictions and it would be mind boggling.

[RobM77]

KB_S1 said:

Reading this I keep thinking back to Chris Harris's article in evo a few months back that featured McCrae's Prodrive 001 Impreza.

That was a 10 year old, road legal (yet WRC restricted power) car and he mentioned that it demolished the likes of a 430 Scud, 911 GT3RS and Exige 260 on B-Roads. That was despite it having an inappropriate suspension setup.
That car had 'only' 300BHP and weighed over 1200kg.

The difference between a rally car and a racing car is huge.

Bring that up to date with a current WRC car and the gap would be huge again.
Ditch the turbo intake restrictions and it would be mind boggling.

And don't forget that on tarmac the difference between a WRC car and a racing car like an F3000 or Radical SR8 is utterly enormous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XqpfZmUXUM

Even on slicks the rally car would probably be making 1.5g lateral tops, whereas F1 will push 5g. The straight line performance is also in a completely different league (http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=23&h=&t=226895).

edited to say: the supporters of bikes being quicker on here might like to note that the above video shows an F3000 car running on public roads with tarmac not in as good condition as the IOM TT course, plus the fact that an F3000 car has half the power of an F1 car.

Edited by RobM77 on Saturday 17th July 16:25