Discussion
NICK HALL IS AN IGNORANT CRETIN.
"And the acceleration is frankly daft,....this beast will hit ......125mph in just 14 seconds and, without the pesky limiter cutting in at the standard 155mph.....blah blah blah"
This so called "superbike" beater.
So a 600 was probably chasing him...or maybe a 400.
My crappy 8 year old Kwacker 900 will hit 125mph in about 12 seconds.
My lardy unfaired Honda X11 will do the same.
A modern R1/GSXR1000 will crack 100mph in about 6.5 secs and do 125mph in 10/11 seconds AND whistle up to 170mph+ without the limiter kicking in.
Twat.
"And the acceleration is frankly daft,....this beast will hit ......125mph in just 14 seconds and, without the pesky limiter cutting in at the standard 155mph.....blah blah blah"
This so called "superbike" beater.
So a 600 was probably chasing him...or maybe a 400.
My crappy 8 year old Kwacker 900 will hit 125mph in about 12 seconds.
My lardy unfaired Honda X11 will do the same.
A modern R1/GSXR1000 will crack 100mph in about 6.5 secs and do 125mph in 10/11 seconds AND whistle up to 170mph+ without the limiter kicking in.
Twat.
Regarding transmission losses and the long posts made by RedOctober. What you're saying makes perfect sense in theory but you've missed out a few key factors. Firstly, humans may only produce 0.5-1hp but we can produce an immense amount of torque (I've heard 1000lb/ft+ mentioned before). Because we do not have rotating mechanisms like a car this torque is not transferred into power like a car with driveshafts, CV shafts etc. As we all know it is torque not hp that initially accelerates a car from standstill (in physics terms it overcomes the inital force of gravity, friction etc.) so this is why humans can push a car. As well as this, a cars transmissions losses increase at a higher rate as you increase the amount of power through the transmission due to increased frictional forces and as can be heard from the exhaust note (most simply), increased sound which is another form of energy loss. So you are not losing 100bhp when only applying 100bhp, you are losing say 25% which is 25hp. When you consider the energy needed to turn all the cogs etc. and not forgetting the tyres which can represent a large loss too, it is not hard to see where they power is going. Unfortunately as I said before, more power=higher losses so although a car may have more HP, it will lose proportionally more of that hp through the transmission. Because of this it is entirley possible for the M6 to lose a 100bhp but I personally think it would be closer to 80hp when the throttle is buried.
Justin Hill said:Whatever Nick might be, by coming in here and throwing your toys, you make yourself look a complete dick.
NICK HALL IS AN IGNORANT CRETIN.
"And the acceleration is frankly daft,....this beast will hit ......125mph in just 14 seconds and, without the pesky limiter cutting in at the standard 155mph.....blah blah blah"
This so called "superbike" beater.
So a 600 was probably chasing him...or maybe a 400.
My crappy 8 year old Kwacker 900 will hit 125mph in about 12 seconds.
My lardy unfaired Honda X11 will do the same.
A modern R1/GSXR1000 will crack 100mph in about 6.5 secs and do 125mph in 10/11 seconds AND whistle up to 170mph+ without the limiter kicking in.
Twat.
[/quote]Whatever Nick might be, by coming in here and throwing your toys, you make yourself look a complete dick.[/quote]
I speak as I find zod.
And......oh, what a surprise....you've got an M5 as well.
Hahahaha.....
Stupid boy Pike.
>> Edited by Justin Hill on Saturday 27th May 18:25
>> Edited by Justin Hill on Saturday 27th May 18:26
I speak as I find zod.
And......oh, what a surprise....you've got an M5 as well.
Hahahaha.....
Stupid boy Pike.
>> Edited by Justin Hill on Saturday 27th May 18:25
>> Edited by Justin Hill on Saturday 27th May 18:26
Thanks for the, erm, passionate discourse...
It is much easieer to get the power down in a big car with massive rear tyres and electronics that help define the limit, but cheers for all your interesting input, especially those questioning my parentage etc.
In a straight line, the bike would have murdered me, but we weren't driving in straight lines.
Cheers
Nick
>> Edited by NickmHall on Sunday 28th May 11:26
It is much easieer to get the power down in a big car with massive rear tyres and electronics that help define the limit, but cheers for all your interesting input, especially those questioning my parentage etc.
In a straight line, the bike would have murdered me, but we weren't driving in straight lines.
Cheers
Nick
>> Edited by NickmHall on Sunday 28th May 11:26
Justin Hill said:
NICK HALL IS AN IGNORANT CRETIN.
"And the acceleration is frankly daft,....this beast will hit ......125mph in just 14 seconds and, without the pesky limiter cutting in at the standard 155mph.....blah blah blah"
This so called "superbike" beater.
So a 600 was probably chasing him...or maybe a 400.
My crappy 8 year old Kwacker 900 will hit 125mph in about 12 seconds.
My lardy unfaired Honda X11 will do the same.
A modern R1/GSXR1000 will crack 100mph in about 6.5 secs and do 125mph in 10/11 seconds AND whistle up to 170mph+ without the limiter kicking in.
Twat.
A 1999 ZX9R can crack 140 in 10 seconds i hate to think what the new bikes can do...
lap_time said:
Just thought I'd add another comment to this topic. Now the M6 is a damn cool car, don't get me wrong (just see the first post) but all this nonsense about cars v bikes has got to stop. In terms of pure performance, a bike will leave any car for dead on a TRACK. On a twisty road, I'd put my money on a decent car. Oz magazine Motor put a Suzuki GSXR1000 up against a 996 Turbo S on a track in a fairly recent issue. The bike won, by the slimmest of margins, but then again, the bike was piloted by an average punter, while Motor chose professional race driver Warren Luff. On any track, the bike will absolutely monster a car in acceleration, and in tight S-bends that require quick flicks from lock to lock. Any other scenario, braking, sweepers, etc, a (good, eg Porsche) car will win, on account of it's higher grip and greater contact patch with the road (most bikes have a patch of rubber roughly the size of a mobile phone actually gripping the road at any one time). The only car I can think of that will actually beat a bike in a straight line is the Veyron. Now I'm sure someone will reply "but look at the power to weight ratio" (Veyron is 1001hp over 1890kg equals 529 hp/ tonne), but that's not the whole story. The Veyron has an infinitely greater amount of grip to actually put the power to use, which is why it still accelerates from 0-60 mph in 2.5 sec, roughly on par with a modern hyperbike. Also, I'd like to see any bike in the world (Y2K aside) that will beat a Veyron to 300km/h, because once that big thing is rolling, there's not much to stop it. So, in conclusion, grip (not forgetting the small matter of 920 lb/ft torque) make bike's power/weight pale into insignificance. And don't anybody compare a Veyron and a bike on price, I am well aware of that, actually, mentioning that, in the previously mentioned Motor magazine, it turned out the whole Suzuki cost $5 less than the Porsche's ceramic brakes (!!!). I believe the most important part is that while you bike owners may boast about power/weight and all that, let's see you not wish to be inside a warm, dry, heated interior of a car on a cold, cold winter's day
You reckon a bike will leave any car for dead on a track????
That's an interesting thought but the reality is very different & often dangerous. The reverse is true that higher powered bikes would leave most cars for dead on the road, as the prospect of a 150+MPH blat on a UK road would end in misery, be that injury, death or lost license.
On a track the outcome is very different as a bike can't actually corner quicker than a car however is can stop a little quicker & power out of the corner a little quicker, but i'll lay you money down that I could get my M5 round most corners quicker than most bikes, as i've 4 huge brakes, significantly better traction & a better balanced vehicle in which to negotiate said bend.
I've just returned from 4 days at The Ring & the bikes (many very high powered machines) are just a perceived nuisance on the track as their head is telling them that they're quicker than all cars so they hold lines when most cars are just wishing to pass with ease. I of course know this & will back off to give a biker plenty of time to realise i'm their & wishing to pass them, however not all Ringers are as kind so accidents happen (I personally would never ride a motorbike round The Ring).
Now i'm a biker & my last stead was a ZX12R so I know juts how rapid these bikes are in the right hands, but physics is physics & balls are balls & I state that only the most exceptional bike in the most exceptional hands could lap the Ring quicker than a car in average hands. That is fact & demonstrable time & time again.
Two things...
Firstly, despite Nick Hall's conciliatory 2nd post........……. sorry Nick, but I quote you again from the article...
"But the truth is, ........it will spend 99.9 per cent of its life simply despatching corners, straight lines and super bikes with ruthless efficiency."
Rubbish. For a professional writer, this is an incredibly misleading and ill informed statement.
For 6 years in succession from about 1998 to 2004, I rode to the South of France (Cannes) with 20/30 people who piloted a mixture of cars and bikes. Many of the cars were Porsches, Ferraris etc.
Initially I was on a 1992 Honda CB1000 (a very lardie old Honda "sports tourer" although more "tourer" than "sport"
and latterly a 1998 Kwacker ZX9R. Both chucked out about 125/130bhp at the back wheel.
In terms of outright pace on the twisties (Route Napoleon) and general roads, my bike MURDERED the cars. I am talking real world here. Average riders versus average drivers (although one of the 355s was driven by a fried of mine who races Ferraris and is racing two cars at the Classic Le Mans this year).
On the motor way, the supercars will obviously be faster as both my cheap bikes (both worth around £2,000 at the time of use) would run out of puff at 150mph and 160mph respectively.
That said, the new £9,000 Kwack 1400 will crack a real life 180mph I reckon.
Yes, of course a powerful 500bhp car with 4 fat tyres and superior brakes will out brake/corner a car, but in the real world, on real roads, I have never been been left for dead unless its Motorway (where the car will eventually overtake me at 160mph and pull away…..oh dear…
The Nuremberg ring is a classic example of the superiority of cars. That said, all the various (fair) contests on race tracks I have seen between £100,000+ cars and £9,000 superbikes (both ridden by professional racers) the bike has just done it.
Which I confess to be surprised at and I am sure that someone will produce an example of a car winning (such as the Clarkson test when he didn't allow John Reynolds to warm up his tyres), but the victory will be a slim one.
I love cars and I also love bikes but given the opportunity to blast to the South of France one hot summer, the bike comes first in terms of enjoyment ever time (although the car will beat me there simply because I'd be filling up with petrol every 120 miles). But at least I’ll be having more fun, both in the actual experience and in slaughtering the cars on Route Napoleon.
Firstly, despite Nick Hall's conciliatory 2nd post........……. sorry Nick, but I quote you again from the article...
"But the truth is, ........it will spend 99.9 per cent of its life simply despatching corners, straight lines and super bikes with ruthless efficiency."
Rubbish. For a professional writer, this is an incredibly misleading and ill informed statement.
For 6 years in succession from about 1998 to 2004, I rode to the South of France (Cannes) with 20/30 people who piloted a mixture of cars and bikes. Many of the cars were Porsches, Ferraris etc.
Initially I was on a 1992 Honda CB1000 (a very lardie old Honda "sports tourer" although more "tourer" than "sport"
and latterly a 1998 Kwacker ZX9R. Both chucked out about 125/130bhp at the back wheel. In terms of outright pace on the twisties (Route Napoleon) and general roads, my bike MURDERED the cars. I am talking real world here. Average riders versus average drivers (although one of the 355s was driven by a fried of mine who races Ferraris and is racing two cars at the Classic Le Mans this year).
On the motor way, the supercars will obviously be faster as both my cheap bikes (both worth around £2,000 at the time of use) would run out of puff at 150mph and 160mph respectively.
That said, the new £9,000 Kwack 1400 will crack a real life 180mph I reckon.
Yes, of course a powerful 500bhp car with 4 fat tyres and superior brakes will out brake/corner a car, but in the real world, on real roads, I have never been been left for dead unless its Motorway (where the car will eventually overtake me at 160mph and pull away…..oh dear…
The Nuremberg ring is a classic example of the superiority of cars. That said, all the various (fair) contests on race tracks I have seen between £100,000+ cars and £9,000 superbikes (both ridden by professional racers) the bike has just done it.
Which I confess to be surprised at and I am sure that someone will produce an example of a car winning (such as the Clarkson test when he didn't allow John Reynolds to warm up his tyres), but the victory will be a slim one.
I love cars and I also love bikes but given the opportunity to blast to the South of France one hot summer, the bike comes first in terms of enjoyment ever time (although the car will beat me there simply because I'd be filling up with petrol every 120 miles). But at least I’ll be having more fun, both in the actual experience and in slaughtering the cars on Route Napoleon.
Justin Hill said:
The Nuremberg ring is a classic example of the superiority of cars. That said, all the various (fair) contests on race tracks I have seen between £100,000+ cars and £9,000 superbikes (both ridden by professional racers) the bike has just done it.
Yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn...haven't we done this one to death. I think we agreed that there was a little poetic licence in the article and that most well ridden SBK's would probably be quicker in a straight line, although not all, and that bikes just get in the way on the twisties..and yes I do ride bikes!
Also, seeing as we are picking holes in things that people write, I believe you should be referring to the Nurburgring and in particular the Nordschleife
Do try and be accurate! Horses for courses. My route back from Le Mans includes quite a bit of the French suicide routes which is difficult for a car because of traffic, and then a nice twisty autoroute where you wouldn't see me for dust!
Still never let the facts get in the way of a good story!
Q - "Yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn...haven't we done this one to death?"
A - No, first time I've posted on this subject.
Q - I think we agreed that there was a little poetic licence in the article?
A - No. I haven't agreed anything of the sort. As a professional writer, he is clearly talking out of his backside.
Q - I believe you should be referring to the Nurburgring and in particular the Nordschleife?
A - Yes - quite right. Brilliant deduction Shelock. Well done. Thank you for clearing up that enormous confusion.
"My route back from Le Mans includes......a nice twisty auto route where you wouldn't see me for dust!
Yaaaaaaaaaaawn...
Still, you know what they say?
When the flag drops, the bullshit stops.
I could swear that there should be a "c" in your name. You know, towards the end instead of the "sh"
Could be wrong of course.
Hoho...
>> Edited by Justin Hill on Monday 29th May 21:06
A - No, first time I've posted on this subject.
Q - I think we agreed that there was a little poetic licence in the article?
A - No. I haven't agreed anything of the sort. As a professional writer, he is clearly talking out of his backside.
Q - I believe you should be referring to the Nurburgring and in particular the Nordschleife?
A - Yes - quite right. Brilliant deduction Shelock. Well done. Thank you for clearing up that enormous confusion.
"My route back from Le Mans includes......a nice twisty auto route where you wouldn't see me for dust!
Yaaaaaaaaaaawn...
Still, you know what they say?
When the flag drops, the bullshit stops.
I could swear that there should be a "c" in your name. You know, towards the end instead of the "sh"
Could be wrong of course.
Hoho...
>> Edited by Justin Hill on Monday 29th May 21:06
Justin Hill said:Sorry, that doesn't get you out of that one. Referring to the "Nuremberg Ring" tells us everything we need to know about your lack of enthusiast credentials.
Q - I believe you should be referring to the Nurburgring and in particular the Nordschleife?
A - Yes - quite right. Brilliant deduction Shelock. Well done. Thank you for clearing up that enormous confusion.
Amusing thread, some cars can at least keep up with crotch rockets in the right circumstances, I have in the old Griff in bursts and have chased a large Suzuki of some sort 2 up in a Tamora for quite some time on a twisty B road. Anyway would one of you M6 pilots be interested in a personal plate M16 FUN in classifieds?
Gassing Station | BMW General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff