IOM TT 2018 Car Lap record run?
Discussion
There are a lot of posts here based on two false premises:
1) Bikes cope better with bumps than cars. The opposite is in fact true. In my opinion, it's partly the instability of bikes over the bumps that makes the TT so dramatic and exciting to watch. When a four wheeled vehicle hits a bump, the other two/three wheels are there to support it laterally and/or longitudinally, so it affects it much less. It's a bit like giving a sheep a shove compared with a human - four legs are more stable than two, and this especially applies on rocky ground (any trail runners will know what I mean!). Hang out in the paddock at the 'ring and all the bikers can talk about is the bumps; you never hear car drivers even mention them.
2) A rally car is the best car for the job. This does not have a basis in fact. At every circuit where saloons and purpose built racing cars run equally, the latter are massively faster, not matter how modified the saloons are. This includes bumpy narrow hillclimbs on closed public roads. This is not due to downforce, as many people here have claimed. The constraints of a saloon car body are simply too great. This is due to many factors, mainly weight, drag, CofG and other aerodynamic factors (most saloon cars inherently produce lift at speed, so pinning them down takes drag from add-on aero). Anyone not getting this needs to park a rally car alongside a single seater and take a long look at both. As an example, from memory the rocker cover of my single seater's engine is level with my knees, and my bum is just over 2cm from the ground. Now to drive on a road we'd be more than doubling that, but it's still a CofG and CofG vs track far more optimal than a rally car. I'm not meaning to diminish Subaru's achievement - Mark is a fantastic driver and the team prepared the car beautifully, but it does need pointing out. A Formula Ford with zero downforce can lap the ring in 7m22s with only 200bhp, which isn't that far behind the loony powered Subaru running on massive slicks with mild aero.
Perhaps the best illustration of the above two facts is to watch one of the old F1 cars on an IOM hillclimb section: the engines aren't anywhere near F1 power (400-500bhp usually) and the drivers don't usually push it at all, but put a stopwatch on them between two points and then do the same with a fast TT bike and it'll all become apparent!
1) Bikes cope better with bumps than cars. The opposite is in fact true. In my opinion, it's partly the instability of bikes over the bumps that makes the TT so dramatic and exciting to watch. When a four wheeled vehicle hits a bump, the other two/three wheels are there to support it laterally and/or longitudinally, so it affects it much less. It's a bit like giving a sheep a shove compared with a human - four legs are more stable than two, and this especially applies on rocky ground (any trail runners will know what I mean!). Hang out in the paddock at the 'ring and all the bikers can talk about is the bumps; you never hear car drivers even mention them.
2) A rally car is the best car for the job. This does not have a basis in fact. At every circuit where saloons and purpose built racing cars run equally, the latter are massively faster, not matter how modified the saloons are. This includes bumpy narrow hillclimbs on closed public roads. This is not due to downforce, as many people here have claimed. The constraints of a saloon car body are simply too great. This is due to many factors, mainly weight, drag, CofG and other aerodynamic factors (most saloon cars inherently produce lift at speed, so pinning them down takes drag from add-on aero). Anyone not getting this needs to park a rally car alongside a single seater and take a long look at both. As an example, from memory the rocker cover of my single seater's engine is level with my knees, and my bum is just over 2cm from the ground. Now to drive on a road we'd be more than doubling that, but it's still a CofG and CofG vs track far more optimal than a rally car. I'm not meaning to diminish Subaru's achievement - Mark is a fantastic driver and the team prepared the car beautifully, but it does need pointing out. A Formula Ford with zero downforce can lap the ring in 7m22s with only 200bhp, which isn't that far behind the loony powered Subaru running on massive slicks with mild aero.
Perhaps the best illustration of the above two facts is to watch one of the old F1 cars on an IOM hillclimb section: the engines aren't anywhere near F1 power (400-500bhp usually) and the drivers don't usually push it at all, but put a stopwatch on them between two points and then do the same with a fast TT bike and it'll all become apparent!
Edited by RobM77 on Sunday 23 September 12:26
blade7 said:
As is comparing a bike conforming to TT race regulations with a car that is unrestricted.
er, the entire thread is "theoretical" because you can't drive a car in the TT race because it's a car and not a bike, so what regulations it conforms too are irrelevant.........Fundamentally though, if we consider "bikes" (defined only as having two wheels and leaning into bends) against "cars" (four wheels and leans away) then a car ultimately will always be quicker around a reasonably long closed circuit because its architecture allows it to have a larger contact area and additionally also leverage significant aerodynamic assistance.
There is no fundamental reason that a car or a bike have to have lesser power to weight or power to drag ratios in-extremis
Biker's Nemesis said:
Give a car the same power to weight as a bike and also the same overall tyre width and no aero and see how that pans out.
why would you be so stupid as to do that.to be fairer with a comparison of that nature, you would base tyre contact patch size to the weight and power that contact patch has to handle.
jsf said:
why would you be so stupid as to do that.
I am not stupid, I am just going along with the rest of s
te that both sides are throwing.How about the same ride height for a car that the bikes run and also the same seat height.
I'd pay to watch a car lap the TT if it ran that configuration.
Biker's Nemesis said:
jsf said:
why would you be so stupid as to do that.
I am not stupid, I am just going along with the rest of ste that both sides are throwing.How about the same ride height for a car that the bikes run and also the same seat height.
I'd pay to watch a car lap the TT if it ran that configuration.
Getting really silly now
Biker's Nemesis said:
Give a car the same power to weight as a bike and also the same overall tyre width and no aero and see how that pans out.
A car will be faster, even with a much lower power to weight (e.g. Formula Ford, with no aero - much much lower power to weight. An FR is faster than a Moto GP with only 210bhp!!). The main advantage though, as I'm sure you know, is the tyre contact patch width, so if you equate that then it'd wipe off most of the advantage. There are other advantages to the car, namely stability over bumps and a lack of tendency to wheelie or stoppie, but yes, the main one is the tyre area. The bike of course is thinner and makes more of a racing line.RemyMartin81D said:
RobM77 said:
otolith said:
I'm just thinking about how Tai Chi practitioners must have felt about this;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-398533...
I think that's what bikers would feel like if a slicks and wings racing car were allowed to smash the IOM record. Rationally, it wouldn't prove anything or take anything away from the sport, it's a different code, but emotionally I reckon that would hurt.
Very true. This reminds me of the debate around the 919 Evo breaking all the lap records at different circuits, and the biggie was Bellof's 6min11s. Personally, the way I see it Bellof's 6min11s record isn't diminished by being broken, just like Bannister's 4min mile - both Bs are still legendary. If the 919 Evo demolished the TT lap record (which it would do, by a massive margin), that to me wouldn't touch the entirely different achievements that are the bike lap records.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-398533...
I think that's what bikers would feel like if a slicks and wings racing car were allowed to smash the IOM record. Rationally, it wouldn't prove anything or take anything away from the sport, it's a different code, but emotionally I reckon that would hurt.
k.A proper race car would in all likelihood beat the bikes around the TT course. Based on the precedence of every other major circuit where bikes don't get close to cars.
However the TT course is a different animal - bikes are good at high speed fast changes in direction through "piff-paff" style corners, and fail at braking and longer high speed corners. The TT doesn't have so many of the latter so it will be closer than you might think. And bikes get up to high speed quickly.
Something like an LMP1 with suspension softened to the max would be your best change of success. An F1 car just isn't designed for public roads.
However the TT course is a different animal - bikes are good at high speed fast changes in direction through "piff-paff" style corners, and fail at braking and longer high speed corners. The TT doesn't have so many of the latter so it will be closer than you might think. And bikes get up to high speed quickly.
Something like an LMP1 with suspension softened to the max would be your best change of success. An F1 car just isn't designed for public roads.
This discussion is all a bit pointless without some definition
Clean sheet unlimited designs ? Or existing unmodified race vehicles ? Or mildly modified, or wildly modified ? Or prototypes ?
List of possibles is endless and thus pointless.
Edit
Btw, I've been in a rally car with mr Higgins at his dad's place.
Wow.
Clean sheet unlimited designs ? Or existing unmodified race vehicles ? Or mildly modified, or wildly modified ? Or prototypes ?
List of possibles is endless and thus pointless.
Edit
Btw, I've been in a rally car with mr Higgins at his dad's place.
Wow.
Edited by Gary C on Monday 24th September 16:58
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff