Why don't more performance car enthusiasts ride motorbikes?
Discussion
RobM77 said:
hat's because skiing is a leisure activity, where people learn new skills and push themselves to do cool and exciting things, so it's worth the effort to enjoy it. The same applies to surfing for example - you have to spend five minutes changing to do it and it's worth it. Test and track days at race tracks are the equivalent for bikes. Bumbling along a public road at 49.99mph in 2nd gear on a S1000RR extracting 0.1% of its performance, whilst at risk from sleepy drivers of 1000kg cars that can kill you is a very different thing, and most people wouldn't enjoy that enough to warrant the effort.
That’s just you projecting your own views of what it’s like on a bike and pretending it’s reality when it isn’t. I’ll try yours on a car shall I
adapted RobM77 said:
hat's because skiing is a leisure activity, where people learn new skills and push themselves to do cool and exciting things, so it's worth the effort to enjoy it. The same applies to surfing for example - you have to spend five minutes changing to do it and it's worth it. Test and track days at race tracks are the equivalent for bikes. Bumbling along a public road at 49.99mph in 4th gear in Porsche’s 911 GT3* extracting 0.1% of its performance, whilst stuck in an endless queue behind a Honda Jazz and at risk from sleepy drivers of 1000kg cars that can crash into you is a very different thing, and most people wouldn't enjoy that enough to warrant the effort.
* insert any car you’d like there, including classics. 
RobM77 said:
Firstly it's important to point out that everyone is into cars in a different way, even those people into performance cars and/or track driving. Some people get an adrenaline buzz for driving fast, but for example I never have, I just enjoy the process of driving, particularly (or perhaps exclusively...) cornering. Even that niche preference for cornering can be broken down further - I enjoy balancing a car on tip toes and controlling its balance, whereas others prefer a more secure feeling from driving a car with grippy tyres and 4WD just below this point. As you can see, there's a huge spectrum of interests when it comes to cars, and bikes only fit with some of these interests, and they'll fit in different ways. This means we can't assume cause someone owns a fast car that they'd enjoy a motorbike. Bikes really are a very different kind of performance. Even looking at the cold hard numbers, if you look at the data trace of a lap from a bike and a lap from a car, if the lap time is identical the speeds at all points on the track will be very different, and the things the rider or driver are doing will be different too.
Secondly, we simply can't ignore the danger of motorbikes. Bikes are a vast amount more dangerous than a car. Firstly, you're more likely to crash: people don't see you as easily, you have a lack of stability, you often have much more performance easily accessible from brakes and throttle (two clumsy fingers on the brake can see you down due to a locked front wheel - that wouldn't happen in a car!). Secondly, if you do crash you're massively more likely to be injured. Those two points combine to make death and injury stats way ahead of cars, and it's just too much for most people. As roads get busier and cars get safer (but bikes don't), this is becoming more and more the case as the years go on.
Statistics don't seem to support your argument though. Bikes are more dangerous than cars. Yet statistically driving cars is not that dangerous. I don't know about you but when I get into the car I don't worry about not reaching my destination alive. There is a risk I won't but it is not high enough to be on my mind every day. If that very small risk is 20 times higher it doesn't become a big risk. If my maths is correct, for every mile you spend in a car you have a 0.0000002% chance of dying. Bikes are higher at 0.00001%. However, your chance of winning the lottery is 0.00001% i.e. you are only 10 times as likely to die on a motorbike than win the lotterySecondly, we simply can't ignore the danger of motorbikes. Bikes are a vast amount more dangerous than a car. Firstly, you're more likely to crash: people don't see you as easily, you have a lack of stability, you often have much more performance easily accessible from brakes and throttle (two clumsy fingers on the brake can see you down due to a locked front wheel - that wouldn't happen in a car!). Secondly, if you do crash you're massively more likely to be injured. Those two points combine to make death and injury stats way ahead of cars, and it's just too much for most people. As roads get busier and cars get safer (but bikes don't), this is becoming more and more the case as the years go on.
t, who thinks I’m funny by quoting Clarkson” bingo game. To be perfectly honest they scare the Hell out of me. Many many years ago I was 12 and got on a Norton 250 for my one and only attempt at bike riding. The teenage owner encouraged me to give it a go. After I hit a berm , launched myself over a low stone wall and ended up face first in a cow pat I vowed never to ride a bike again.
I have driven many hundreds of car models from edgy quick stuff to glacially slow but I will not ride a bike again.
I have driven many hundreds of car models from edgy quick stuff to glacially slow but I will not ride a bike again.
otolith said:
If it's playing in the corners, a car has a lot more margin for error correction and lower stakes if you mess up.
This.I used to ride 125cc when I was 19, loved it and still plenty enough to get into trouble (I understand a chap who looked rather like me hit 80mph through the twisty bit of West Cromwell Road racing a Fiat Cinquecento Sporting) but I reckon if I'd had a 500 or 600 I would be dead or worse from playing silly buggers. Hormones, youthful exuberance and minimal contact patches are not a good combo.
On top of otoliths comment, there's also the ever present memory of someone side-swiping my bro on the M25 (SMIDSY). If he had been driving he would have had scrapes and dents only. Instead he had a broken arm and a torn rotator cuff on top. Someone else's stupidity can put you in a bad place.
Gavia said:
RobM77 said:
hat's because skiing is a leisure activity, where people learn new skills and push themselves to do cool and exciting things, so it's worth the effort to enjoy it. The same applies to surfing for example - you have to spend five minutes changing to do it and it's worth it. Test and track days at race tracks are the equivalent for bikes. Bumbling along a public road at 49.99mph in 2nd gear on a S1000RR extracting 0.1% of its performance, whilst at risk from sleepy drivers of 1000kg cars that can kill you is a very different thing, and most people wouldn't enjoy that enough to warrant the effort.
That’s just you projecting your own views of what it’s like on a bike and pretending it’s reality when it isn’t. I’ll try yours on a car shall I
adapted RobM77 said:
hat's because skiing is a leisure activity, where people learn new skills and push themselves to do cool and exciting things, so it's worth the effort to enjoy it. The same applies to surfing for example - you have to spend five minutes changing to do it and it's worth it. Test and track days at race tracks are the equivalent for bikes. Bumbling along a public road at 49.99mph in 4th gear in Porsche’s 911 GT3* extracting 0.1% of its performance, whilst stuck in an endless queue behind a Honda Jazz and at risk from sleepy drivers of 1000kg cars that can crash into you is a very different thing, and most people wouldn't enjoy that enough to warrant the effort.
* insert any car you’d like there, including classics. 
Regarding your mis-understanding though, if that's what you'd rather discuss (and you seem keen!), then actually I agree with you. Many performance cars are fairly boring on the public road and are a lot of hassle and expense for very little reward. If you get a kick out of bumbling along in a Ferrari at 50mph, then fair play to you, but personally, given limited finances and space at home I'd rather have a comfy road car and a track toy, which is precisely what I've done. That track toy could be a car or a bike - as you rightly say, the principle is the same.
Edited by RobM77 on Thursday 15th March 12:06
Esceptico said:
RobM77 said:
Firstly it's important to point out that everyone is into cars in a different way, even those people into performance cars and/or track driving. Some people get an adrenaline buzz for driving fast, but for example I never have, I just enjoy the process of driving, particularly (or perhaps exclusively...) cornering. Even that niche preference for cornering can be broken down further - I enjoy balancing a car on tip toes and controlling its balance, whereas others prefer a more secure feeling from driving a car with grippy tyres and 4WD just below this point. As you can see, there's a huge spectrum of interests when it comes to cars, and bikes only fit with some of these interests, and they'll fit in different ways. This means we can't assume cause someone owns a fast car that they'd enjoy a motorbike. Bikes really are a very different kind of performance. Even looking at the cold hard numbers, if you look at the data trace of a lap from a bike and a lap from a car, if the lap time is identical the speeds at all points on the track will be very different, and the things the rider or driver are doing will be different too.
Secondly, we simply can't ignore the danger of motorbikes. Bikes are a vast amount more dangerous than a car. Firstly, you're more likely to crash: people don't see you as easily, you have a lack of stability, you often have much more performance easily accessible from brakes and throttle (two clumsy fingers on the brake can see you down due to a locked front wheel - that wouldn't happen in a car!). Secondly, if you do crash you're massively more likely to be injured. Those two points combine to make death and injury stats way ahead of cars, and it's just too much for most people. As roads get busier and cars get safer (but bikes don't), this is becoming more and more the case as the years go on.
Statistics don't seem to support your argument though. Bikes are more dangerous than cars. Yet statistically driving cars is not that dangerous. I don't know about you but when I get into the car I don't worry about not reaching my destination alive. There is a risk I won't but it is not high enough to be on my mind every day. If that very small risk is 20 times higher it doesn't become a big risk. If my maths is correct, for every mile you spend in a car you have a 0.0000002% chance of dying. Bikes are higher at 0.00001%. However, your chance of winning the lottery is 0.00001% i.e. you are only 10 times as likely to die on a motorbike than win the lotterySecondly, we simply can't ignore the danger of motorbikes. Bikes are a vast amount more dangerous than a car. Firstly, you're more likely to crash: people don't see you as easily, you have a lack of stability, you often have much more performance easily accessible from brakes and throttle (two clumsy fingers on the brake can see you down due to a locked front wheel - that wouldn't happen in a car!). Secondly, if you do crash you're massively more likely to be injured. Those two points combine to make death and injury stats way ahead of cars, and it's just too much for most people. As roads get busier and cars get safer (but bikes don't), this is becoming more and more the case as the years go on.
RobM77 said:
Esceptico said:
Is it because you have to wear protective gear? But then I don't see many people refusing to ski because they have to wear ski boots and ski clothing.
That's because skiing is a leisure activity, where people learn new skills and push themselves to do cool and exciting things, so it's worth the effort to enjoy it. The same applies to surfing for example - you have to spend five minutes changing to do it and it's worth it. Test and track days at race tracks are the equivalent for bikes. Bumbling along a public road at 49.99mph in 2nd gear on a S1000RR extracting 0.1% of its performance, whilst at risk from sleepy drivers of 1000kg cars that can kill you is a very different thing, and most people wouldn't enjoy that enough to warrant the effort.2. I like skiing. But living in East Anglia I find it rather difficult to do it!
3. I suspect most S1000RR owners are not sat at 49.99 in second....or at least not for long.
4. Bike track days are much cheaper than car track days. I don't know whether they are more fun as its been 25 years since I did a car track day...
I love motorbikes.
I love the look of them. I love the sound of them. I love the speed of them.
However, I'm too much of a wimp to ride one, mainly because of the consequences of having an issue on one at car-like road speeds (60/70mph).
Maybe one day though.
I love the look of them. I love the sound of them. I love the speed of them.
However, I'm too much of a wimp to ride one, mainly because of the consequences of having an issue on one at car-like road speeds (60/70mph).
Maybe one day though.
Edited by MrBarry123 on Thursday 15th March 11:59
RobM77 said:
Esceptico said:
RobM77 said:
Firstly it's important to point out that everyone is into cars in a different way, even those people into performance cars and/or track driving. Some people get an adrenaline buzz for driving fast, but for example I never have, I just enjoy the process of driving, particularly (or perhaps exclusively...) cornering. Even that niche preference for cornering can be broken down further - I enjoy balancing a car on tip toes and controlling its balance, whereas others prefer a more secure feeling from driving a car with grippy tyres and 4WD just below this point. As you can see, there's a huge spectrum of interests when it comes to cars, and bikes only fit with some of these interests, and they'll fit in different ways. This means we can't assume cause someone owns a fast car that they'd enjoy a motorbike. Bikes really are a very different kind of performance. Even looking at the cold hard numbers, if you look at the data trace of a lap from a bike and a lap from a car, if the lap time is identical the speeds at all points on the track will be very different, and the things the rider or driver are doing will be different too.
Secondly, we simply can't ignore the danger of motorbikes. Bikes are a vast amount more dangerous than a car. Firstly, you're more likely to crash: people don't see you as easily, you have a lack of stability, you often have much more performance easily accessible from brakes and throttle (two clumsy fingers on the brake can see you down due to a locked front wheel - that wouldn't happen in a car!). Secondly, if you do crash you're massively more likely to be injured. Those two points combine to make death and injury stats way ahead of cars, and it's just too much for most people. As roads get busier and cars get safer (but bikes don't), this is becoming more and more the case as the years go on.
Statistics don't seem to support your argument though. Bikes are more dangerous than cars. Yet statistically driving cars is not that dangerous. I don't know about you but when I get into the car I don't worry about not reaching my destination alive. There is a risk I won't but it is not high enough to be on my mind every day. If that very small risk is 20 times higher it doesn't become a big risk. If my maths is correct, for every mile you spend in a car you have a 0.0000002% chance of dying. Bikes are higher at 0.00001%. However, your chance of winning the lottery is 0.00001% i.e. you are only 10 times as likely to die on a motorbike than win the lotterySecondly, we simply can't ignore the danger of motorbikes. Bikes are a vast amount more dangerous than a car. Firstly, you're more likely to crash: people don't see you as easily, you have a lack of stability, you often have much more performance easily accessible from brakes and throttle (two clumsy fingers on the brake can see you down due to a locked front wheel - that wouldn't happen in a car!). Secondly, if you do crash you're massively more likely to be injured. Those two points combine to make death and injury stats way ahead of cars, and it's just too much for most people. As roads get busier and cars get safer (but bikes don't), this is becoming more and more the case as the years go on.
Esceptico said:
Statistics don't seem to support your argument though. Bikes are more dangerous than cars. Yet statistically driving cars is not that dangerous. I don't know about you but when I get into the car I don't worry about not reaching my destination alive. There is a risk I won't but it is not high enough to be on my mind every day. If that very small risk is 20 times higher it doesn't become a big risk. If my maths is correct, for every mile you spend in a car you have a 0.0000002% chance of dying. Bikes are higher at 0.00001%. However, your chance of winning the lottery is 0.00001% i.e. you are only 10 times as likely to die on a motorbike than win the lottery
It's about 40x more dangerous per mile than a car, 1 micromort (1 in a million chance of death) gets you 400km in a car 10km on a bike, but as you say still relatively lowTo put it in to perspective by comparative chance of death with other activities:
Skydiving = 80-90km on a motorbike
Running a marathon = 70km on a motorbike
Having a bath = 300m on a motorbike
Cycling 10km = 6km on motorbike
Giving birth = 1200km on a motorbike
WW2 bomber command mission=250,000km on a motorbike
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff