IOM TT 2018 Car Lap record run?
Discussion
RemyMartin81D said:
Max_Torque said:
ok ok, then those two guys can easily then explain to me why a bike can better handle a bumpy road than a car, using real physics formulas and showing their working? or are they sticking too the "you weren't there man, you can't know man" line...... ?
I've been lucky enough to design, develop, calibrate and test vehicles that have won F1, LeMans, WRCs and WTC race event, and i've actually driven (BRC rallying) a fair bit on the IoM, including driving on roads there that are a hell of a lot narrower and bumpier than the main TT course, which isn't actually very rough at all.
The fundamental reason the scooby failed to beat the bikes is because it's a saloon car, and the course is a 'high speed' course. Due to its intrinsic shape a saloon car produces lift (it looks like an aeroplane wing from side on), so to cancel some of that lift and to even given it possibly a fraction of downforce it needs large, "topside" aerodynamic devices, and those mean drag, lots, and lots, and lots of drag. And as aero drag increase with the cube of speed, your 600bhp, which accelerated that car rather well at 'just' 100 mph suddenly is being mostly used to counter the drag. For a bike, with a small front area and no aerodynamic devices, the drag profile is hugely lower, so at speed (>100mph) they can still accelerate well, which is why bikes hit huge top speeds between corners, despite being relatively slow to turn or brake.
I've not run the numbers, but a quick back of the envelop calc suggests a typical 3 box production saloon car would need getting on for 1000bhp to match a bikes power to drag profile.
Of course, that all changes when we move away from saloon cars. A custom sports car like the 919 generates massive downforce from underbody aero, and from low drag devices, which is why it's able to corner at 3g and yet accelerate very hard indeed at high speed. Watch the N'ring footage, the 150 to 200mph accel is just bonkers. Total traction, low drag, massive power.
But hey,lets not let facts get in the way of name calling and willy waving eh..... ;-)
Almost a trope to see you list your qualifications. None of which detract untils it's done it's hypothetical bullsI've been lucky enough to design, develop, calibrate and test vehicles that have won F1, LeMans, WRCs and WTC race event, and i've actually driven (BRC rallying) a fair bit on the IoM, including driving on roads there that are a hell of a lot narrower and bumpier than the main TT course, which isn't actually very rough at all.
The fundamental reason the scooby failed to beat the bikes is because it's a saloon car, and the course is a 'high speed' course. Due to its intrinsic shape a saloon car produces lift (it looks like an aeroplane wing from side on), so to cancel some of that lift and to even given it possibly a fraction of downforce it needs large, "topside" aerodynamic devices, and those mean drag, lots, and lots, and lots of drag. And as aero drag increase with the cube of speed, your 600bhp, which accelerated that car rather well at 'just' 100 mph suddenly is being mostly used to counter the drag. For a bike, with a small front area and no aerodynamic devices, the drag profile is hugely lower, so at speed (>100mph) they can still accelerate well, which is why bikes hit huge top speeds between corners, despite being relatively slow to turn or brake.
I've not run the numbers, but a quick back of the envelop calc suggests a typical 3 box production saloon car would need getting on for 1000bhp to match a bikes power to drag profile.
Of course, that all changes when we move away from saloon cars. A custom sports car like the 919 generates massive downforce from underbody aero, and from low drag devices, which is why it's able to corner at 3g and yet accelerate very hard indeed at high speed. Watch the N'ring footage, the 150 to 200mph accel is just bonkers. Total traction, low drag, massive power.
But hey,lets not let facts get in the way of name calling and willy waving eh..... ;-)
t like everyone else pro or against bikes.Stick to your electric cars you seems to w
k yourself over and name drop as many times as possible. Basically the engineer version of breadvan.
Knowledgeable but ultimately a complete
.Bye.
(PS, does your CV suddenly look a bit s**t as well then??? lol)
Max_Torque said:
Do i take it therefore that you are unable to explain why a bike can handle bumps and a car can't ??? ;-)
(PS, does your CV suddenly look a bit s**t as well then??? lol)
Presumably the under car aero you refer to above requires the car to be close to the ground? What ride height is required for this to be effective and how much suspension travel is required to avoid the car becoming unstable at speed over a bumpy surface? Does a 919 have the necessary amount of both? (PS, does your CV suddenly look a bit s**t as well then??? lol)
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 26th September 19:39
wormus said:
Presumably the under car aero you refer to above requires the car to be close to the ground? What ride height is required for this to be effective and how much suspension travel is required to avoid the car becoming unstable at speed over a bumpy surface? Does a 919 have the necessary amount of both?
For true "ground effect" which enables massive downforce generation with very little drag penalty (or even actually an overall reduction in drag) then the closer to the ground the better. The 10mm deep "Plank" required by F1 regs reduces down force by over 40%. However, they still manage to produce something like 3 to 4 times their mass as downforce even with the plank, thanks to detailed aero dynamic design and 'flow line focusing'. For all racing formula "moveable skirts" that could bridge the gap to the ground are banned, but for an un-regulated ultimate IoM lap, then everything is allowed, so dynamic skirting can be used to completely close any gap to the ground and recover that lost downforce even at a 'high' ride height. (high here being something like 75mm. for reference, a typical ultra high performance road sports car runs at around 100mm from the factory, mostly set by the requirement to not ground on std height kerbstones)
But even without true ground effect, underbody design for a sports car (ie not a 3 box saloon designed to take passengers efficiently) still can generate huge downforce with low drag. Suitable diffuser and aero channels, in conjunction with active flow control offers easily 2 times the vehicles mass as downforce without significant penalty at any ride height.
Finally i should note that modern sports cars are now tough enough to not actually need that much suspension travel. I've got in-car logs from the Aston LeMans cars i ran of repetitive >10g positive impact loads when the cars hits kerbs and bumps during braking, which the car stands up to without breaking for 24 hours these days. On a bike, a 10g positive Z axis load would mean the rider would be flat on the tank at best (75kg rider at 10g = 750kg!!) and skidding down the road on their face at worst........
RemyMartin81D said:
Max_Torque said:
ok ok, then those two guys can easily then explain to me why a bike can better handle a bumpy road than a car, using real physics formulas and showing their working? or are they sticking too the "you weren't there man, you can't know man" line...... ?
I've been lucky enough to design, develop, calibrate and test vehicles that have won F1, LeMans, WRCs and WTC race event, and i've actually driven (BRC rallying) a fair bit on the IoM, including driving on roads there that are a hell of a lot narrower and bumpier than the main TT course, which isn't actually very rough at all.
The fundamental reason the scooby failed to beat the bikes is because it's a saloon car, and the course is a 'high speed' course. Due to its intrinsic shape a saloon car produces lift (it looks like an aeroplane wing from side on), so to cancel some of that lift and to even given it possibly a fraction of downforce it needs large, "topside" aerodynamic devices, and those mean drag, lots, and lots, and lots of drag. And as aero drag increase with the cube of speed, your 600bhp, which accelerated that car rather well at 'just' 100 mph suddenly is being mostly used to counter the drag. For a bike, with a small front area and no aerodynamic devices, the drag profile is hugely lower, so at speed (>100mph) they can still accelerate well, which is why bikes hit huge top speeds between corners, despite being relatively slow to turn or brake.
I've not run the numbers, but a quick back of the envelop calc suggests a typical 3 box production saloon car would need getting on for 1000bhp to match a bikes power to drag profile.
Of course, that all changes when we move away from saloon cars. A custom sports car like the 919 generates massive downforce from underbody aero, and from low drag devices, which is why it's able to corner at 3g and yet accelerate very hard indeed at high speed. Watch the N'ring footage, the 150 to 200mph accel is just bonkers. Total traction, low drag, massive power.
But hey,lets not let facts get in the way of name calling and willy waving eh..... ;-)
Almost a trope to see you list your qualifications. None of which detract untils it's done it's hypothetical bullsI've been lucky enough to design, develop, calibrate and test vehicles that have won F1, LeMans, WRCs and WTC race event, and i've actually driven (BRC rallying) a fair bit on the IoM, including driving on roads there that are a hell of a lot narrower and bumpier than the main TT course, which isn't actually very rough at all.
The fundamental reason the scooby failed to beat the bikes is because it's a saloon car, and the course is a 'high speed' course. Due to its intrinsic shape a saloon car produces lift (it looks like an aeroplane wing from side on), so to cancel some of that lift and to even given it possibly a fraction of downforce it needs large, "topside" aerodynamic devices, and those mean drag, lots, and lots, and lots of drag. And as aero drag increase with the cube of speed, your 600bhp, which accelerated that car rather well at 'just' 100 mph suddenly is being mostly used to counter the drag. For a bike, with a small front area and no aerodynamic devices, the drag profile is hugely lower, so at speed (>100mph) they can still accelerate well, which is why bikes hit huge top speeds between corners, despite being relatively slow to turn or brake.
I've not run the numbers, but a quick back of the envelop calc suggests a typical 3 box production saloon car would need getting on for 1000bhp to match a bikes power to drag profile.
Of course, that all changes when we move away from saloon cars. A custom sports car like the 919 generates massive downforce from underbody aero, and from low drag devices, which is why it's able to corner at 3g and yet accelerate very hard indeed at high speed. Watch the N'ring footage, the 150 to 200mph accel is just bonkers. Total traction, low drag, massive power.
But hey,lets not let facts get in the way of name calling and willy waving eh..... ;-)
t like everyone else pro or against bikes.Stick to your electric cars you seems to w
k yourself over and name drop as many times as possible. Basically the engineer version of breadvan.
Knowledgeable but ultimately a complete
.Bye.
As I said earlier, a simple Formula Renault with a 210bhp Clio engine and very mild downforce is several seconds faster than a Moto GP bike at any circuit they both race on - take that formula and add a load of power, some more downforce and run a slightly higher ride height (F3, GP3, GP2 etc) and you'd absolutely obliterate any motorbike. Now enclose the wheels for less drag, add some more power again (e.g. 919 Evo) and you've got around 30-35 seconds a lap on a Moto GP bike over 2 miles, perhaps 25s at a much higher ride height (and how long's the TT course? We're basically talking several minutes over that distance).
Oh, and as MT says, a car copes way better than a bike with bumps, because after a single wheel bump you've still got three left, and after a double wheel bump you've still got two left - cars are inherently just much more stable. That's what makes the TT exciting - have you not seeing the tankslappers the riders get into several times a lap and the bikes wiggling over bumps at 180mph+? (Higgins got in one I think in the Subaru? That was it, and that was a bloody great big Subaru! That just doesn't happen in a racing car).
Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 26th September 20:48
STe_rsv4 said:
1040 posts and still no closer to a conclusion. can we just agree to disagree that a bike is faster around the TT until a car actually is faster around the TT than a bike? 
I tried that approach on a page so early on that I cannot be bothered to find it. It didn’t work. coppice said:
Your straw is my fact . I agree about the 919 IoM potential though , and I suspect there are many less high profile wundercars which would also lap IoM quickly enough to settle this ...errm ..'debate '. Quite way anybody thinks a Time Attack car is the last word in speed has been spending too much time listening to TA's silly self publicity and not enough watching serious racing cars . At my local circuit the best TA car coudn't match a 30 year old Clubman car with a1700 Ford Crossflow...
What wunder car do you think would get close? The Subaru was way more than some tuner TA car.
This year was also notable for some supercars coming over to the Island all got comprehensively gapped over the mountain course. The Radical I got taken out in was impressive his spliter was destroyed but it was an impressive ride he got gaped over the mountain by someone on an 1199 but it was good fun.
Edited by ZX10R NIN on Wednesday 26th September 23:32
With regards to the lift the standard Subaru has then I agree with MT if they'd run that car then lift would have been a problem, but that car was very far away from a standard car aero wise, in fact aero was one of the big factors in that infamous tank slapper through Bray Hill.
As for why the bikes handles bumps better I don't know I'm not a suspension engineer but I can tell you that some were out riding & came across a GT3 RS some spirited riding/driving ensued the GT3 hit a set of bumps that the bikes went through, it bottomed out suspension wise & then went into a tank slapper that couldn't be recovered by the driver & he ended in a field with a rolled car. Now the bikes (road bikes with around 190bhp standard suspension) didn't have issues in that section of road but the car did.
Maybe you can explain it to me MT as a I'd expect a car like that to have been able to cope with the bumps I'll add it was very high speed for that type of road.
The Performante Huracan (on a different day) had a similar experience but only messed up his bumper/splitter.
Having ridden the course on a number of occasions & driven the mountain course many times all I can tell you is that I'm made aware of bumps that I don't feel on the bike (I will add my bike has a full BiTurbo setup) as a sidebar I can recommend the Hyundai i30N as a cracking hot hatch we had access to one of these & the Golf R, to a man most actually preferred taking the i30N over the mountain section.
As for why the bikes handles bumps better I don't know I'm not a suspension engineer but I can tell you that some were out riding & came across a GT3 RS some spirited riding/driving ensued the GT3 hit a set of bumps that the bikes went through, it bottomed out suspension wise & then went into a tank slapper that couldn't be recovered by the driver & he ended in a field with a rolled car. Now the bikes (road bikes with around 190bhp standard suspension) didn't have issues in that section of road but the car did.
Maybe you can explain it to me MT as a I'd expect a car like that to have been able to cope with the bumps I'll add it was very high speed for that type of road.
The Performante Huracan (on a different day) had a similar experience but only messed up his bumper/splitter.
Having ridden the course on a number of occasions & driven the mountain course many times all I can tell you is that I'm made aware of bumps that I don't feel on the bike (I will add my bike has a full BiTurbo setup) as a sidebar I can recommend the Hyundai i30N as a cracking hot hatch we had access to one of these & the Golf R, to a man most actually preferred taking the i30N over the mountain section.
What a lap!ZX10R NIN said:
What wunder car do you think would get close?
The Subaru was way more than some tuner TA car.
This year was also notable for some supercars coming over to the Island all got comprehensively gapped over the mountain course. The Radical I got taken out in was impressive his spliter was destroyed but it was an impressive ride he got gaped over the mountain by someone on an 1199 but it was good fun.
Forget hypercars- I've seen plenty on track and they aren't very impressive at all, for all the reasons set out above far more authoritatively than I can. No road going car, or road based car can compete with even very cheap and low powered single seaters . Don't take my word for it- just go to your local speed hillclimb or race circuit and compare even a big power saloon type car with a Formula Jedi(1000cc bike engine ) or a F3 or 4 , none of which have a fraction bhp of the willy waving hypercar , but none weigh a silly 1500 kg plus either. The Subaru was way more than some tuner TA car.
This year was also notable for some supercars coming over to the Island all got comprehensively gapped over the mountain course. The Radical I got taken out in was impressive his spliter was destroyed but it was an impressive ride he got gaped over the mountain by someone on an 1199 but it was good fun.
Edited by ZX10R NIN on Wednesday 26th September 23:32
Sorry to sound surprised , but this is a site for car people so I'd have thought , y'know, that more than the odd guy (or girl ) would watch motor sport live now and again. But if folk think a hopped up Subaru ,for chrissake, is even nearly representative of how quick a competition car can go, they need to get out more
Edited by coppice on Thursday 27th September 10:35
RemyMartin81D said:
Almost a trope to see you list your qualifications. None of which detract untils it's done it's hypothetical bullst like everyone else pro or against bikes.
Stick to your electric cars you seems to wk yourself over and name drop as many times as possible.
Basically the engineer version of breadvan.
Knowledgeable but ultimately a complete.
Bye.
I've found both Max_Torque and breadvan regularly make insightful posts which are worth reading, because they know what they're talking about. Both of them seem to rile up thickos though.t like everyone else pro or against bikes.Stick to your electric cars you seems to w
k yourself over and name drop as many times as possible. Basically the engineer version of breadvan.
Knowledgeable but ultimately a complete
.Bye.
hairykrishna said:
RemyMartin81D said:
Almost a trope to see you list your qualifications. None of which detract untils it's done it's hypothetical bullst like everyone else pro or against bikes.
Stick to your electric cars you seems to wk yourself over and name drop as many times as possible.
Basically the engineer version of breadvan.
Knowledgeable but ultimately a complete.
Bye.
I've found both Max_Torque and breadvan regularly make insightful posts which are worth reading, because they know what they're talking about. Both of them seem to rile up thickos though.t like everyone else pro or against bikes.Stick to your electric cars you seems to w
k yourself over and name drop as many times as possible. Basically the engineer version of breadvan.
Knowledgeable but ultimately a complete
.Bye.
coppice said:
Forget hypercars- I've seen plenty on track and they aren't very impressive at all, for all the reasons set out above far more authoritatively than I can. No road going car, or road based car can compete with even very cheap and low powered single seaters . Don't take my word for it- just go to your local speed hillclimb or race circuit and compare even a big power saloon type car with a Formula Jedi(1000cc bike engine ) or a F3 or 4 , none of which have a fraction of the willy waving hypercar , but none weigh a silly 1500 kg plus either.
Sorry to sound surprised , but this is a site for car people so I'd have thought , y'know, that more than the odd guy (or girl ) would watch motor sport live now and again. But if folk think a hopped up Subaru ,for chrissake, is even nearly representative of how quick a competition car can go, they need to get out more
As I've always said throughout (as have lots of others) the thread some form of monocoque wonder could beat the bike record, the reason someone hasn't done it is the sheer cost & they won't be able to race the thing anywhere.Sorry to sound surprised , but this is a site for car people so I'd have thought , y'know, that more than the odd guy (or girl ) would watch motor sport live now and again. But if folk think a hopped up Subaru ,for chrissake, is even nearly representative of how quick a competition car can go, they need to get out more
Subaru didn't come back because they're no longer selling the STI & therefore deemed it pointless, Honda who took over providing cars to the TT have decided they're not interested.
An F2/3/4 won't get close to the record they're not fast enough, no one on here thinks that the Subaru is the pinnacle of motorsport but they're the benchmark & it was a serious no holds barred effort with a very serious car & driver yet it still came up short.
I can't see anyone wanting to spend a million+ building a car to do it, I'd love to see it though as a sidebar they should take the 919 evo to the Ulster GP I think that course would suit it.
Superkarts are the best illustration of 4 wheels' superiority over 2. TT bikes are road-based right? Maybe a little slower than WSBK? Well Superkarts lap faster and have about half the power.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u361DTg3DUw
http://www.cikfia.com/competitions/cik-calendar/20...
https://www.asphaltandrubber.com/wsbk/world-superb...
Yes I know the TT is a road course but the point here is the massive advantage of 4 contact patches and a bit of down force.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u361DTg3DUw
http://www.cikfia.com/competitions/cik-calendar/20...
https://www.asphaltandrubber.com/wsbk/world-superb...
Yes I know the TT is a road course but the point here is the massive advantage of 4 contact patches and a bit of down force.
RumbleOfThunder said:
Superkarts are the best illustration of 4 wheels' superiority over 2. TT bikes are road-based right? Maybe a little slower than WSBK? Well Superkarts lap faster and have about half the power.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u361DTg3DUw
http://www.cikfia.com/competitions/cik-calendar/20...
https://www.asphaltandrubber.com/wsbk/world-superb...
Yes I know the TT is a road course but the point here is the massive advantage of 4 contact patches and a bit of down force.
Track corners are much sharper than the vast majority of corners at the TT, there are relatively few hairpins at the TT. Irish road races are usually three sections of road with (terrifying) junctions between the sections.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u361DTg3DUw
http://www.cikfia.com/competitions/cik-calendar/20...
https://www.asphaltandrubber.com/wsbk/world-superb...
Yes I know the TT is a road course but the point here is the massive advantage of 4 contact patches and a bit of down force.
How are karts on jumps anyway?
Lol even with my caveat the usual responses came in immediately. 
I'm just demonstrating how poor bikes corner in comparison to cars. Obviously a 2 stroke, 250cc Kart isn't going to break the record. Although they do smash Superbikes on the fastest circuits in the world which is a bit embarrassing.
I'm just demonstrating how poor bikes corner in comparison to cars. Obviously a 2 stroke, 250cc Kart isn't going to break the record. Although they do smash Superbikes on the fastest circuits in the world which is a bit embarrassing.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff